Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we start business today, I wish to report to the House that I have received a letter from the Speaker of the Ukraine Parliament. The letter says:
“I express my sincere gratitude to you and the House of Commons for your strong position in support of Ukraine, condemning the unprovoked and unjustified military aggression from the Russian Federation against the Ukrainian state”.
In particular, the letter expresses thanks for organising the address by President Zelensky, which it describes as
“a milestone event in the history of our bilateral relations”.
I know that, like me, colleagues will be grateful for this letter. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Defence

The Secretary of State was asked—

Future Soldier Programme

James Sunderland: What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Army’s Future Soldier programme.

Douglas Ross: What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Army’s Future Soldier programme.

James Heappey: Future Soldier will see the largest transformation of the British Army in more than 20 years. This change, which is only just beginning, will create an Army that is more integrated, agile and lethal; a modern force fit to face up to current and future threats.

James Sunderland: Can the Minister please assure me that the Army Future Soldier programme will keep pace with any emerging doctrinal lessons from Ukraine, and that the British Army will be structured and equipped to meet associated threats?

James Heappey: I certainly can. The integrated review was based on operational analysis of the land campaigns in northern Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. We are keenly watching the operational analysis as it comes in with regard to what is going on in Ukraine. At the moment, I think we would reflect that the nature of the land battle is exactly as we expected it to be, but clearly if the threat changes, the policy changes.

Douglas Ross: The Army Future Soldier programme was great news for Moray, an area that has benefited significantly from UK Government investment at RAF Lossiemouth. The Future Soldier programme confirmed that Kinloss barracks will not only be retained, but expanded. Will the Minister outline what plans he and the Government have for Kinloss barracks, working with 39 Engineer Regiment, which has been a valuable and integral part of the Moray community since it moved there a decade ago?

James Heappey: My hon. Friend will be delighted at the £25 million of capital investment in the single living accommodation at Kinloss before 2025, which is a reflection of just how important the base is to the Army going forward. 39 Engineer Regiment will remain at Kinloss and continue to play a key role in the Moray community. As part of the Future Soldier order of battle, it will remain in its current role as a force support air engineer regiment.

Nick Smith: The infantry are the core of our Army, so why will most of the cuts in the Department’s plans fall on the infantry?

James Heappey: As a former infanteer, I agree vigorously with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The infantry are at the core of the fighting force—they are—but the reality is that we need to change our force design. The premium now is on dispersal and being able to operate effectively in a dispersed way. “Hide to survive” is the tag coming out of many war games and from what we are seeing in real life in Ukraine. The vision is for a more agile, more lethal infantry that is able to disperse and bring effect on to the enemy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that, but he will have seen, from the footage of Ukrainians interrupting the activities of vast armoured columns, that small bands of determined people with the right missile technology are far more lethal than any opposing armoured force might prove to be.

Martin Docherty: I wonder if the Minister could advise the House on how extensively the Department is consulting through the ranks on the programme. Specifically, are serving personnel able to make recommendations or express opinions outwith the rank structure?

James Heappey: I am not sure I agree with the afterthought to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I know that the Chief of the General Staff and his team were vigorous in the way that the Future Army plans were communicated to the Army and that the Army chain of command had an opportunity to contribute to them. I am not sure that there is a mechanism quite as he envisages it, but the Army is, certainly in my experience, the sort of organisation that enjoys being challenged from within. I know there is plenty of challenge going on, so that the Army can make sure it develops the right plans for the future.

John Healey: Mr Speaker, we are proud to receive the letter, which you read out, from the Ukrainian Speaker, and we are proud that President Zelensky said last night:
“Britain is definitely on our side.”
The Government have Labour’s full support for the UK’s military help to Ukraine. Putin’s brutal invasion surely reminds us that the Army’s primary role must be to reinforce Europe’s deterrence and defence against Russian aggression, so why do the Minister’s Future Soldier plans risk leaving the British Army too small, too thinly spread and too poorly equipped to deal with the threats that the UK and our NATO allies face?

James Heappey: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman and I have been looking at different sets of plans, because I see an Army that ends up being better equipped, more lethal and more integrated. The choice that was made to introduce the deep recce strike capability into the third armoured division is absolutely game changing, and it is what is required. The de-prioritisation of the close fight that we have seen in Nagorno-Karabakh, in northern Syria and now in Ukraine shows us that the key, defining characteristic of the modern land battle is the ability to strike precisely and in depth, and to attrit our enemy while they are moving towards us. That is what the deep recce strike brigade is going to get after.

John Healey: The heart of our UK commitment to NATO is indeed a fully capable war-fighting division, which the former Chief of the Defence Staff has described as
“the standard whereby a credible army is judged.”
Why will this modernised war-fighting third division not be delivered until 2030? Why did Ministers decide it would be built around Ajax when they knew about the deep-seated problems? Why, when it took the German Chancellor just three days to overturn decades of defence policy and boost defence spending by €100 billion, does the National Audit Office say that UK Ministers could take another nine months even to decide whether to stick with or scrap Ajax?

James Heappey: The right hon. Gentleman knows that candour is the name of the game whenever I am speaking. I think there are reasons why both sides of the House could reflect on quite why our Army has the age of kit that it has. Governments of both parties have missed a number of opportunities to decide to renew the Army’s equipment inventory over the last 20 or 30 years. The reality is that the Army has to be redesigned to meet the threat as it now is, and I think that two armoured infantry or strike brigades with a deep recce strike brigade is exactly what a modern war-fighting division should look like. Within NATO, there are discussions about how the NATO force needs to transform to meet the modern threat.

Defence Jobs

Virginia Crosbie: What steps his Department is taking to help support defence jobs across the UK.

Jacob Young: What steps his Department is taking to help support defence jobs across the UK.

David Duguid: What steps his Department is taking to help support defence jobs across the UK.

Miriam Cates: What steps his Department is taking to help support defence jobs across the UK.

Jeremy Quin: Recent estimates shows MOD investment supporting over 200,000 jobs across the UK. Continued investment in defence, along with the changes we are making as part of the defence and security industrial strategy, will contribute to further economic growth and prosperity, including jobs, across the Union.

Virginia Crosbie: BAE Systems at RAF Valley in my constituency of Ynys Môn is hoping to hear news about a long-term contract, providing security to hundreds of workers. These are high-value jobs that underpin our sovereign UK defence capability. These technical and engineering roles provide maintenance to the RAF Hawk T2 fleet and support our future fighter pilots. Does my hon. Friend agree that this forthcoming contract is great news for Anglesey and great news for our UK security in these challenging times?

Jeremy Quin: I cannot comment on specific contracts, but I can confirm that those are indeed high-value jobs performing an important role for our armed forces. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in pushing the case for defence jobs in her constituency, and I hope to be making an announcement shortly.

Jacob Young: Does the Minister agree that the current dreadful situation in Ukraine means that we need to be very focused on our defence supply chains, buying and using British where possible and further supporting the economies of areas such as Redcar and Cleveland?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were already focused on securing our critical defence supply chains, but DSIS has provided renewed impetus. Specifically on steel, as he mentions his home patch, it is for the prime contractors to place orders but they are all flagged well in advance with UK industry. Unfortunately, there are occasions—we have had this recently—when specific types of steel that we require are not being produced in the UK. I would urge UK manufacturers to really explore these opportunities. We are very keen to see them do so.

David Duguid: The Minister will be familiar with the company Score in my constituency. It is a major supplier of valves across different industries, including for naval vessels. May I invite him to see for himself the fantastic facilities, technology and expertise, including the award-winning apprenticeship schemes, utilised by the single largest employer in my constituency of Banff and Buchan?

Jeremy Quin: Our increase in naval procurement benefits jobs throughout the UK. I am delighted to hear of the Score Group’s apprenticeship scheme to build talent for the future and I am keen to visit. The UK Government’s shipbuilding programme is proving a great success in supporting Scottish jobs unlike, it appears, that of other Governments with which my hon. Friend, as a Scottish Member, may be familiar.

Miriam Cates: Given the MOD’s recently acquired stake in Sheffield Forgemasters, I know that my hon. Friend understands the important role of the UK steel industry in our national security. What consideration  has he given to the opportunities for greater integration and collaboration on defence manufacturing between Sheffield Forgemasters and other steel producers, such as Stocksbridge’s Speciality Steel in my constituency, which he is also welcome to visit? That collaboration could benefit jobs and security.

Jeremy Quin: I am aware of the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We took the unusual decision—it is unusual—to acquire Sheffield Forgemasters to secure its unique capability to supply specialist large-scale, high-integrity steel components, which are vital to defence programmes. Ultimately, it is for companies to manage commercial decisions for their future, but to improve engagement, the Business Secretary reformed the UK Steel Council in 2021, which offers a forum for the Government, industry and trade unions to work in partnership on what is absolutely a shared objective for UK steel to have a competitive and sustainable future.

Mohammad Yasin: The Aircraft Research Association in Bedford is the only UK-based facility capable of testing our future military aircraft and components, but it is at risk of closure due to the change in electricity costs. Ofgem has stated that only the Government can introduce an exemption scheme to save the company and prevent the UK being reliant on foreign states to test our aircraft. Will the Minister urgently meet me and the ARA to discuss a way forward that protects our national security?

Jeremy Quin: I am willing to meet the hon. Gentleman if that is helpful. I warn him that we are aware of the situation and of the capabilities that we need. I am happy to meet him and speak to him and I will take it from there.

Matt Western: Many hon. Members have been surprised or enlightened by the performance of the Bayraktar TB2 in Ukraine. What sort of message does that send to UK strategy and procurement?

Jeremy Quin: Happily, we were ahead of the game. It is part of the discussion that we had as part of the integrated review. There are active processes in place to test UAVs—unmanned aerial vehicles—and counter-UAV technologies. We are aware of them. This conflict and previous ones have thrown into sharp relief how effective those weapon systems can be.

Barry Sheerman: I have some important manufacturers that supply the defence sector, such as David Brown Santasalo and Reliance Precision, that would like to know what the future of their business is, given that the Government are going to reduce the size of our armed forces to 72,000 and that last week’s mini-Budget gave no extra funding to defence. If Vladimir Putin is watching the parliamentary channel, what does the Minister think he will be thinking?

Jeremy Quin: I do not know whether Mr Putin is watching us today; I would like to say some robust things if he is. I give some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman: last time I visited David Brown Santasalo, it was hard at work on components for the Type 26, to  which programme we are committed, as he knows, and on many export orders. It is hard at work producing really valuable bits of kit for the UK and in due course, I hope, our allies.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to shadow Minister Chris Evans.

Chris Evans: UK shipbuilding accounts for 42,600 jobs, yet the Government continue to fail to protect that vital industry and those highly skilled jobs by refusing to build British by default. Can the Minister give me one good reason why we cannot guarantee that all future naval ships procured by this Government will be built in Britain using British steel?

Jeremy Quin: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman many more than one good reason for why we have the strategy that we do. To name one, let us look at Type 31, which is a fantastic British export success to Poland and Indonesia; I am convinced that there will be others in due course. It was built with the support of an international consortium and we got the best in the world. It is now based firmly in the UK with a lot of it in the UK supply chain, which is giving the best opportunity for UK jobs and for UK shipbuilders to thrive internationally and competitively.

Violence against Women: Armed Forces

Wendy Chamberlain: What steps he is taking to help tackle violence against women in the armed forces.

Leo Docherty: Of course, we have a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women across Defence, and our actions across education, training and the service justice system reflect that. Women can and do have brilliant careers right across Defence, and the role models of senior women leaders across all three services reflect that.

Wendy Chamberlain: My constituent had been living in the armed forces base in my constituency with her partner and her children, for whom she was the primary carer. During that time, she experienced continued domestic abuse and when she took the brave step of leaving her partner, she was told by the base that she would be required to leave. As a result, she was made homeless and, concerningly, she has had to leave her two very small children with her partner at the base. Although commitments to end violence in the first place are of course crucial, there will always be circumstances where it takes place. So what support can the Department put in place for those who suffer domestic abuse, and their dependants, while living within the armed forces community?

Leo Docherty: I am very moved to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and if she would like to approach me with more details, I would certainly be happy to look at that case again. I reassure her that we have had a countering domestic abuse strategy across Defence since 2018, and I look forward to updating the House in due course about our strategy for tackling rape and serious sexual offences across Defence.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that we train all our military personnel to be able to be extremely violent when the situation requires but we also train them to have the self-discipline to control that aggression and that any breach of that discipline, whether perpetrated against male or female victims, needs to be dealt with expeditiously and seriously through military law?

Leo Docherty: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and this is all the more the case given that women occupy every role right across Defence, quite rightly.

Russian Aggression: Support for NATO Allies

Andrew Gwynne: What steps the Government are taking to support NATO allies in response to Russian aggression.

Tony Lloyd: What steps the Government are taking to support NATO allies in response to Russian aggression.

James Heappey: We are currently supplying significant air power to NATO’s eastern flank, as well as sending ships to the eastern Mediterranean. We have a well-established and enduring contribution to the NATO enhanced forward presence battle group in the Baltics and in Poland—in recent weeks we have almost doubled our military forces in Estonia to demonstrate that capability and our resolve to support that region.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Minister, because the UK is right to bolster support to our NATO allies bordering Russia, and NATO is right in condemning Putin’s illegal and atrocious actions in Ukraine. Opposition Members stand shoulder to shoulder in upholding democracy, freedom, the rule of law and security. Of course, modern warfare is not just about troops, weapons and equipment, so what more are we doing to work with our allies across NATO in strengthening cyber-resilience in the alliance?

James Heappey: NATO is acutely aware that the threat has evolved beyond the three conventional domains and into space and cyber-space as well, which is why that is a key part of NATO’s transformation plans. The UK is to the fore in that, because we have invested ahead of many of our allies in both defensive and offensive cyber-capabilities. So the UK voice is very much to the fore in discussing with NATO how we develop a cyber-capability for the alliance.

Tony Lloyd: Is not one lesson of the brutal aggression of Russia in Ukraine that the decision by the Baltic states to join NATO was the right one? Aggression in Ukraine is not a vindication of NATO’s expansion; it is a vindication of the Baltic states’ joining our military alliance. Is there not a lesson for all NATO powers, including our own: we have to think again about how much we are prepared to spend on defence?

James Heappey: Make no mistake: the NATO membership of our great friends and allies in the Baltic represents one of the great strengthening moments of the alliance generally. Nobody is prouder to fly the NATO flag than Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, and we stand four-square behind them and behind what it would  mean if President Putin were to try to compromise the territorial integrity of those countries in any way. As for the hon. Gentleman’s wider question about resourcing defence across the alliance adequately, I strongly agree; we are one of only a few countries that has been routinely spending the 2% of GDP target. It is fantastic that this moment of challenge within the euro-Atlantic has meant that other countries have now increased their spending to meet that target, too. If there are arguments for more money for defence, no Defence Minister is ever going to object, but we should reflect that the UK has been spending 2% for a while and was given a very significant uplift from the Treasury only 12 months ago.

Richard Drax: I commend the United Kingdom for all it is doing to help our NATO allies, but I make this point to the Minister, from one soldier to another. He said earlier that, if circumstances change, the policy changes. I do not excuse myself for again asking the Government to rethink the cut to the Army. He was referring to out of area-type operations, and we are now looking potentially, God forbid, at a conventional war, where mass will be important. We no longer have that mass and it must be retained.

James Heappey: My hon. Friend and I will debate keenly the future of the land battle, but I am not sure that what we have seen on our TV screens over the past few weeks has been a justification for large amounts of massed armour. I think it is entirely a vindication of a change in the way in which the land battle is prosecuted. If forces are massed, they are vulnerable to missile technologies, which are absolutely in the ascendancy. I think that Future Soldier and the integrated review, which gave birth to that, are exactly the right way to develop the Army to meet the requirements of the land battle as it is now and not perhaps how we thought it was 20 years ago.

Alec Shelbrooke: Supporting NATO allies is about not just the eastern front and the situation in and around Russia, but the threat from Russian naval activity. Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus must equally be on the activities of Russian submarines in the north Atlantic, around our allied coast, and that the Navy must be given equal consideration in regard to our strategic strength moving forward?

James Heappey: Submarine operations in the north Atlantic are not routinely spoken about in public, but my right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that we are acutely aware that we must maintain awareness of what Russia is doing in the whole Euro-Atlantic and that the focus should not just be on the obvious point of conflict in Ukraine. There is a belligerence to the way in which Russia is doing its business right now, which means that this is the time for maximum vigilance for the UK and the alliance, so that we make sure that all threats to the homeland are properly countered.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow minister, Luke Pollard.

Luke Pollard: Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. We support the provision of lethal aid to Ukraine and we back the bolstering of defences for our allies on NATO’s eastern front. The Government have already deployed various assets, including Royal Navy ships  from Devonport, which I am proud to represent, but will the Minister set out what further forces are being prepared for deployment to our NATO allies? Can he say whether the cost of that deployment is coming from already strained Ministry of Defence budgets, or whether it will be met from the Treasury reserve, as was the case during the last Labour Government?

James Heappey: There is a constant regeneration of forces. As two battle groups are committed to Estonia, more battle groups need to embark on the training pipeline to make sure that we have contingent land forces at readiness. Similarly, ships have been deployed to the two NATO standing maritime groups and to Exercise Cold Response. We continue to generate further ships to give more choice and options thereafter, if requested by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Similarly, with the Typhoons and F-35s, a large amount has been committed as part of the initial response force, but we are generating more to have them at our disposal, if SACEUR asks for more.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the money right now. All of it seems to be being met by the Treasury; long may that continue.

Julian Lewis: Given that we should help the Ukrainian armed forces by all legitimate means short of war, will Ministers press our NATO allies on the fact that the rather artificial distinction between defensive and offensive weaponry should be swept away when requests for equipment are received, because when a country is fighting on its own territory, having been invaded, all its weaponry is defensive?

James Heappey: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It suits our purpose to refer to the equipment that we are providing in the context of the defensive role it can play, but defence intelligence over the weekend reflected on the fact that the armoured column to the north-west of Kyiv has been pushed back in recent days, because small bands of determined people are manoeuvring with lethal weapons systems. That is forcing the Russians to move back into a place where they feel that they can defend themselves better. These are defensive bits of equipment. That, I think, is the right message to send to the Kremlin. If, in the ingenuity of the Ukrainian armed forces, they do something more, that is good on Ukraine.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

Stewart McDonald: On behalf of the Scottish National party, may I, too, welcome the letter from Speaker Stefanchuk to this House?
My last exchange with the Secretary of State, who cannot be with us this afternoon, was in relation to the NATO strategic concept. When I asked about the Government’s—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just remind people that they have to stay for two full questions after the question that they have asked? Too many Members have asked a question and left. I remind people: please wait for two full questions and show courtesy to the House when you have had the benefit of a question. I am sorry to interrupt, but I need to get that on record.

Stewart McDonald: Especially when I am on my feet, Mr Speaker.
When I last spoke to the Secretary of State across the Floor of the House, I asked about the upcoming NATO strategic concept, which is second in importance only to the Washington treaty itself. May I ask the Minister specifically about that? Is it still planned to happen in June, or will the timetable for it move because of Russia’s war on Ukraine? In terms of what we can expect to see from it, will we have the Government’s Arctic strategy before then? In terms of containing Russia, the Secretary of State said at our last exchange that he planned to have a conversation with SACEUR about that very issue. Can the Government tell us what their priorities will be for containment of Russia going forward?

James Heappey: The hon. Gentleman will have to accept my apologies, but so important is the NATO strategic concept that I am afraid it is something that the Secretary of State works on with the team immediately around him. He will need to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail that he asks for.

Stewart McDonald: I am always happy to write, but perhaps I could take the Minister on from that to an important issue. NATO is clearly focused on bolstering its own defences and on supporting Ukraine militarily. Several NATO and non-NATO member states are focused on doing the same, plus supporting Ukraine economically. But Ukraine will require Marshall plan levels of rebuilding and international co-operation and support across NATO countries, EU countries and countries further afield. Will the Minister enlighten the House as to what discussions are taking place in NATO specifically with a focus on helping the country to rebuild? The war will come to an end eventually and our friendship must continue the day after.

James Heappey: The discussions in NATO very much focus on the Euro-Atlantic security implications of the conflict and on what the situation may be after it is completed. The wider geopolitical discussion and the economic plan, among other things that the hon. Gentleman rightly asks for, may be discussed within NATO, but I do not think that they are the focus of NATO discussions; I think that they are much more the focus of discussions within the G7, the EU and other ad hoc groupings that are coming together in order to worry about exactly what is next.

NATO Members: Co-operation

Theresa Villiers: What steps he is taking to help strengthen co-operation between NATO members.

James Heappey: In recent months, the Secretary of State has met his NATO counterparts twice in Brussels and travelled to over a dozen European capitals. The UK is standing by its commitments to our NATO allies, acting to provide reassurance to allies and partners. The UK has doubled its NATO presence in Estonia, and a deployment of Royal Marines is now in Poland on a bilateral basis.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Government co-operate with NATO allies to continue the flow of lethal aid to the Ukrainian armed forces, including weapons such as Starstreak to defend against aircraft attacks?

James Heappey: I did not take the opportunity in my answer to a previous question to make an important distinction, but my right hon. Friend gives me that opportunity now. NATO is not the provider of lethal aid into the conflict in Ukraine. NATO is looking at how it doubles down on its eastern flank in order to contain the violence within Ukraine and show the resolve of NATO countries to stand up for article 5. Those who are donating lethal aid and non-lethal aid to Ukraine are doing so bilaterally, and it is through UK leadership that a lot of it is being co-ordinated and delivered. The next donor conference convened by the Secretary of State will happen later this week. We are ambitious for even more countries to join the donor group at that stage.

Integrated Review 2021: Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Philip Dunne: With reference to the integrated review 2021, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies on force structure in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

James Heappey: The integrated review explained that Defence’s forces must prepare for the most persistent global engagement and constant campaigning to counter emerging threats. We are continuing to monitor the situation in Ukraine to ensure that we remain threat-led and, in line with the agile planning and delivery mechanisms developed following the IR, we will continue to review our capabilities and readiness levels accordingly.

Philip Dunne: Last week, NATO nations committed force deployments to four member states in eastern Europe to help to demonstrate resolve to Russia at this dangerous time. Does my hon. Friend not agree that now is not the time to reduce the force strength of the British Army by 9,500 regular soldiers, and that this aspect of the conclusions of the integrated review should be at the very least deferred and at best reversed?

James Heappey: My right hon. Friend is an expert in the field. I acknowledge that this issue will be keenly debated and that he has a strong view on it. My own view is that this is the right time to accelerate the acquisition of the lethality that has been missing from the field Army for too long. We are outranged on our artillery, we lack the land precision fires that are now essential and, if I had to choose—and I think that the Ministry of Defence has had to choose—I would choose to have a land force that has been modernised and made relevant to the modern battle again, rather than necessarily standing behind larger numbers.

Veterans Strategy Action Plan: 2022 to 2024

Caroline Dinenage: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the “Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan: 2022 to 2024.”

Leo Docherty: I am pleased to have regular discussions with colleagues across Government on our veterans’ strategy action plan, which contains more than 60 policy commitments amounting to £70 million of additional investment on priorities, including employment, data,   skills and healthcare. We continue to work closely with other Departments, research academics and service charities at all levels to deliver its commitments.

Caroline Dinenage: Just under 10% of the working-age population of Gosport are veterans, so we take a keen interest in this excellent action plan. However, although 96% of our veterans make a successful transition to a civilian career within six months of leaving the forces, it is not until page 32 that the plan talks about promoting a positive image of them. Can we change the headline here to “Service veterans are excellent people to employ”?

Leo Docherty: My hon. Friend has afforded me a useful opportunity to make exactly that point, but I must first thank her for the magnificent work that she does in support of her armed forces community and veterans in Gosport. The reason there is such high demand for veterans in all sectors is that they make brilliant employees: military service does indeed give members of the armed forces skills for life.

Dan Jarvis: I am sure that pursuing a Commonwealth veteran for 36 grand in NHS costs is not part of the MOD’s strategy. Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for someone who has served our country and risked his life in Iraq and Afghanistan to be treated in this way and, if he does, will he work with me and with others to put it right?

Leo Docherty: I do agree that it is wrong and I look forward to updating the hon. Gentleman personally about that case in particular.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Stephanie Peacock.

Stephanie Peacock: The veterans strategy commits the Government to ending veteran rough sleeping by the end of 2024. Can the Minister tell the House how many veterans are currently sleeping rough and, if he cannot, how does he intend to meet that target with no plan, no resources and no data?

Leo Docherty: We do have a plan and it is reflected in the fact that the armed forces covenant is now deliverable by all local authorities. It has teeth as a result of the statutory guidance that we have delivered, and for which we have legislated for the first time ever. At local authority level, which is where these services are delivered, we have brought real, tangible change of which we can be very proud.

Support to Ukraine’s Military

Mark Fletcher: What support his Department is providing to Ukraine’s military.

James Heappey: Britain was the first European country to supply lethal aid to Ukraine. The UK has so far delivered more than 4,000 next-generation light anti-tank weapons, as well as Javelin anti-tank systems, and is committed to providing Starstreak missiles. We will continue to deliver more. We have also delivered non-lethal aid in the form of body armour, helmets, boots, ration packs, rangefinders and communications equipment.

Mark Fletcher: I welcome the recent announcement that 6,000 additional missiles will go to Ukraine. Indeed, I think we have led the way in terms of providing support for that country. As the conflict evolves, however, many scenarios may play out. What steps is the Department taking to plan for future support that the Ukrainians may need?

James Heappey: The Secretary of State and I both speak to our counterparts in the Ukrainian MOD numerous times each week. It is apparent, as I am sure it would be if we were in these circumstances, that the thing that starts every conversation is resourcing the fight tomorrow. The great advantage of the partnership and trust between the UK and Ukrainian MODs is that we are able to do some of the thinking about what they might need next week, the week after and in three months’ time, and we are working hard to ensure that we are cueing up industry to deliver those capabilities as quickly as we can.

Patrick Grady: How much of the MOD’s spending on that kind of relief in Ukraine will be counted as official development assistance?

James Heappey: I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman about that, but I am not sure that it would be very much at all.

Defence Estate Optimisation Programme

Steve Brine: What recent progress he has made on the Defence estate optimisation programme.

Jeremy Quin: The MOD continues to deliver on its 25-year strategy to modernise its estate. In the last year, the Defence estate optimisation portfolio has completed construction at three Defence sites, with another six in construction, and completed the sale of seven surplus MOD sites, generating £141 million in receipts to re-invest in modem and sustainable facilities for our armed forces.

Steve Brine: The Minister knows that the Sir John Moore barracks in my constituency is marked for disposal under the programme. He also knows that what will be put in its place is causing anxiety. As we reduce the size of the Army in pursuit of the Future Soldier proposals in the integrated review, it is obvious that some consolidation will be needed around the training estate, but does the Minister share my concern about losing what is a good facility in good order at the Army Training Regiment in Winchester, given that the conflict at present—and, I suspect, for some time to come—looks very 20th century, not necessarily in terms of offensive ground operations, but in terms of all the other things, including boots on the ground, that we require of our armed forces?

Jeremy Quin: I know from the meetings we have had that my hon. Friend is very engaged with this MOD site, which is due to close in 2026. The rationale for the closure is to concentrate all phase 1 non-infantry training at Pirbright to provide a bespoke training environment embracing digitalisation. The numbers trained could be flexed, but I will continue to engage with him on what he has impressed on me is an important issue for his constituents.

Ukraine: Protection of Territorial Integrity

Drew Hendry: What steps his Department is taking to help protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

James Heappey: Defence continues to play a central role in helping Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity, working with allies and partners to uphold international law. We are also providing lethal and non-lethal military aid to meet the Ukrainian armed forces’ requests for assistance and co-ordinating the provision of additional military support from our allies and partners to enable Ukraine to repel Russian aggression.

Drew Hendry: The UK Government’s preparation for this war evidently anticipated a quick lightning strike on Kyiv by Putin’s forces, followed by attempted regime change, rather than military resource allocation for a protracted ground war crisis. Why was this the case? What lessons, if any, have been learned?

James Heappey: I think there are two points to make to that. First, the UK Government were able to anticipate what has happened because our intelligence services did an extraordinary job in understanding what the threat was, and our alliances with other intelligence services around the world worked brilliantly. That is a useful correction to 20 years of doubting intelligence when making decisions in this place, because our intelligence services remain among the best in the world. To the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether the right or wrong kit was given, I think that, absent any decision a decade ago to begin Ukraine’s transition to NATO-calibre weapons systems, which would have been an overt step on the way to Ukrainian NATO membership—we can discuss whether or not that is a good thing—the right thing to do in those circumstances was to grab stuff that was on the shelf and available to be brought to bear immediately in the defence of Ukraine. That is exactly what we did.

Ukrainian Resistance to Russian Aggression

Andrew Jones: What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression.

James Heappey: Ukrainian armed forces have robustly resisted all Russian axes of invasion, conducting effective ambush and artillery strikes on Russian military convoys and maintaining air defences that are limiting Russian air superiority. Ukrainian resistance is significantly restricting Russia’s ability to deploy combat power against Kyiv. It is unlikely that Russia has achieved its planned objectives at this stage of the invasion.

Andrew Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. My constituents have told me that they want to see the Government continue to support the Ukrainian resistance in three ways: humanitarian assistance in the region; welcoming refugees here; and military aid. We have seen the news that the Ukrainian army is retaking parts of  its area from the Russians, so as the Ukrainian need evolves, will he ensure that our support evolves to meet that changing need?

James Heappey: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking a week, two weeks, two months and three months ahead in order to give the Ukrainians strategic depth and in order to bring to bear our technological and industrial advantages and to provide them with the kit we think they will need, not just in the next few days but in three months’ time, so that they can continue to ensure that President Putin fails in his endeavours in Ukraine.

Support for Ukraine’s Military: British Equipment

Selaine Saxby: Whether his Department is taking steps to procure British equipment to support Ukraine’s military.

Jeremy Quin: I emphasise that decisions on equipment are in response to requests from Ukraine, and we consider how best to address Ukraine’s needs. The anti-tank weapons provided to the Ukrainian armed forces thus far have been taken from existing UK stocks, to ensure speed of delivery. The MOD continues to pursue options to meet Ukrainian requirements rapidly, including through UK industry and by actively convening our global partners.

Selaine Saxby: I have been contacted by manufacturers of military hardware in North Devon that work with the MOD and can rapidly move to provide items such as helmets and body armour. Are there any plans for a streamlined emergency procurement process to help speed this up?

Jeremy Quin: I emphasise that these are Ukrainian decisions. I urge UK companies to contact the Ukrainian embassy, as well as using other routes. In parallel, the Department for International Trade is meeting defence-ready trade associations such as ADS and Make UK on a weekly basis to rapidly consider industry offers to Ukraine and how they can be assisted. UK manufacturers of military hardware may also wish to forward offers to their trade association.

Topical Questions

Alex Norris: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Quin: You are aware of this, Mr Speaker, but a number of hon. Members have inquired and the Defence Secretary would not want it to be thought that he means any discourtesy to the House: he has had a brief brush with covid, and I can assure the House on behalf of the Department, the armed forces and the Ministers here present that it has neither stopped him nor slowed him down. He has had a second negative test today, and I am assured that by this evening he will be as present physically as he has been virtually over the last few days.
The Ministry of Defence continues to deliver against the objectives of the integrated review and the defence Command Paper, which recognise that Russia remains  the most acute threat to our security. We remain on course to deliver a more modernised and threat-focused defence alongside our international allies, just as we have worked with them on Ukraine.

Alex Norris: Recent weeks have only reinforced the need to invest in our defence, which is important for our economy and vital for our security. With that in mind, why will Ministers not give a clear commitment to British-built by default in defence procurement?

Jeremy Quin: The events of the last few weeks show the critical importance of having the right kit in the hands of our armed forces. On many occasions the need can be met by British supply, but I would not write off the kit we can procure from our US and NATO allies, nor would I wish them to write off the prospect of buying kit from us. We are part of an alliance, and I am convinced that our approach of supporting British industry, supporting British investment and supporting capability through the defence and security industrial strategy, while keeping a weather eye on what else is available to ensure our armed forces are well armed, is the right one.

Philip Hollobone: The Secretary of State’s decision to send lethal defensive military aid to Ukraine before Russia’s invasion was inspired, and it is probably one of the best decisions he has ever taken. What is the initial assessment of the Minister for the Armed Forces of the operational effectiveness in theatre of the next generation light anti-tank weapons we have sent to Ukraine?

James Heappey: One pauses because these weapon systems, every time they are effective, kill the entire crew of an armoured vehicle. My hon. Friend will take no pleasure from it, but he will be interested to note that these weapon systems have been prolific in their success. The Ukrainian armed forces value them enormously. They are accurate, reliable and deadly.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, John Healey.

John Healey: The UK’s anti-tank and anti-air weapons are proving vital to the Ukrainians in fighting the Russian invasion. The Prime Minister pledged at NATO last week that we will supply a further 6,000 missiles. Both NLAW and Starstreak are made in Britain by British workers, as the Minister for Defence Procurement said in response to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on Question 17, but has production started to replace the British stockpiles of these missiles?

Jeremy Quin: We are working closely with industry. Some lines have continued, but I would rather not get into operational details of as and when stockpiles will be replenished. Suffice it to say that we are in active conversations with industry, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect.

Andrew Rosindell: It is 40 years this coming week since the invasion of the Falkland Islands and the violation of British sovereignty by Argentina. It is five weeks since the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by Russia. As China eyes up Taiwan,  does the Minister agree that it is time that the Government started to plan for an increase in defence spending, maybe to 3% of GDP?

Jeremy Quin: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I note his concern. As the integrated review made clear, we always look at spending on a threat basis: what is required, we fund. I also remind him that we are the biggest defence spender in Europe and the second biggest in NATO, and we were pleased to receive a £24 billion uplift in the current spending period.

Wendy Chamberlain: As a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I had the pleasure of visiting Lossiemouth earlier this year. Leuchars airfield in my constituency is still maintained as a back-up site for operations. Given the current situation, can the Minister advise on sonar and radar upgrades? It is important that back-up facilities are also fit for purpose.

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think I wrote to her last in November of last year on that issue. I am afraid we have not moved on yet and we are still studying exactly what radar configurations will be required, but it is actively being looked at and I certainly commit to updating her when I can give her an assurance one way or the other.

Julian Lewis: Fleeing for their lives when Kabul fell, some Afghans with UK connections entered Pakistan without documentation. Will Ministers urgently devise a practical plan safely to bring to the UK those Afghans who have entry visas to come to this country, but who are still being hunted by the Pakistani police, whose Government apparently want to hand them back to the Taliban?

James Heappey: My right hon. Friend knows that I have been engaged in this matter for him for some time. I am told from my phone that the high commissioner has now reached out to explain the situation. For the benefit of the wider House, the challenge is that for those who arrive in Pakistan with eligibility to come to the UK under whichever Government scheme they are intending to use, but have not entered Pakistan legally, the Pakistan Government are taking a view on limiting our ability to process those people. We are working hard to persuade the Pakistan Government to take a different approach.

Zarah Sultana: Joram is a veteran and constituent who came to Britain in 2001 and served in the armed forces, with tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. That left scars: he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and took to drinking, and as a result served time in prison. He turned his life around and is now a painter and decorator and a father of two, but the Home Office is seeking to deport him to Zimbabwe, where he has no connections and where, when he was last there 15 years ago, he was tortured for having served in our armed forces. That risks happening again. Will the Minister intervene to stop Joram, a veteran, being deported?

Leo Docherty: I would be very pleased to review the details of the case and correspond directly with the hon. Lady.

Mark Eastwood: It is vital that we protect our veterans from vexatious legal claims, something that we have already put in place for those who have served overseas. Will the Minister agree to work with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Government to ensure that legislation is also urgently brought forward to help to protect our Northern Ireland veterans?

Leo Docherty: We are grateful to all veterans of Operation Banner and seek to give them closure with honour and finality. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will in due course bring forward the requisite Bill.

Jamie Stone: The most effective deployment of our submarine forces in response to Russian deployment is surely intelligence-dependent. Membership of the joint expeditionary force is not synonymous with that of NATO. I press the Minister: are we making every effort to glean intelligence on Russian naval deployment from those other countries?

James Heappey: Our intelligence on Russian submarine movements is, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, some of the most sensitive, but he will be reassured to know that we are absolutely working with allies to ensure that our understanding of where Russian submarines are is the best it can possibly be, and that we are postured to ensure that we meet whatever threat there may be as a consequence.

Ben Everitt: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that Poland’s recent decision to award Babcock the contract for the Arrowhead frigates for the Polish navy is a brilliant example of British shipbuilding capabilities being used to support our NATO allies.

Jeremy Quin: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that downselection. There is still a process to go, but if it has finally got over the line, as I hope, that will be great news for Babcock, great news for Scotland and great news for British shipbuilding. I have on multiple occasions been to see my opposite number in Poland and hosted them here in the UK. I think they are making a great choice.

Ellie Reeves: In June last year, one of my constituents, a British-Afghan dual national, travelled to Afghanistan to visit his wife and three children aged under 10. During the evacuation, they were advised to proceed to Baron Hotel but were not processed before the suicide attack. Since then they have been trying to get to the UK, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office says they need a visa and the Home Office says they are ineligible for the resettlement scheme. What urgent action can the Minister take, with colleagues in the Home Office, to ensure that my constituent can return safely to the UK with his young family?

James Heappey: The hon. Lady’s question implies, I think, that her constituent was not eligible to come under the Ministry of Defence-administered Afghan relocations and assistance policy. I know that will be of no consolation to him or his family in Afghanistan. We are working hard with other Government Departments  to make sure that those who were called forward under the leave outside the rules scheme that was in operation during Operation Pitting are still looked after. However, I will need to have this discussion with other Ministers, and I will ask one of them to write to her with an update on the case.

Felicity Buchan: I understand that Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles are being made available to Ukraine. Could this kit be used to protect humanitarian corridors and nuclear power plants?

James Heappey: It certainly could be—it is a highly effective weapons system—but we are not seeking to be in any way prescriptive with the Ukrainians about how it is employed, as they will understand their plan better than we do. We give them these weapons systems confident that they will bring them to good use, and thus far that has proved correct.

Chris Matheson: Does the Minister share my concern that the agility and mobility hoped for in the Future Soldier programme will be thwarted if those soldiers are stuck in traffic on the M6 near Weeton barracks? Would it not be much better to keep Dale barracks in Chester open and have a wider operational footprint for our future soldiers?

Jeremy Quin: That is an ingenious construction. We always think about this, but I am afraid we do not have any plans to change that element of the defence estate optimisation portfolio at this point.

Matthew Offord: Ukraine is becoming one of the most contaminated countries in the world, with explosive weapons, land-mines, cluster munitions and unexploded ordnance posing a threat to military and civilians alike. Will the Minister meet me and leaders of EOD UK, a mine action community, to discuss how we can plan for the enormous decontamination task ahead of us?

James Heappey: I certainly will. I have had the opportunity—I am not sure if it is the misfortune or good fortune—to visit a number of countries that have been heavily mined in the past. We see the tragic human cost that comes in countries that have been heavily mined, but also the hope that comes with a meaningful demining programme. I would be delighted to meet the organisation my hon. Friend suggests.

Rachael Maskell: The national security vetting services have never played such an important role, and the skill there is incredibly high. When will the Minister announce that they will remain in York when the MOD moves forward with its plans for the Imphal barracks site?

Jeremy Quin: I cannot give any form of commitment on that right now, but I will write to the hon. Lady.

James Davies: Over the weekend I was pleased to see two Royal Navy vessels join five other joint expeditionary force nations in escorting British and Danish supply ships. They successfully delivered military vehicles and equipment to the UK-led NATO battle group in Estonia. Does my   hon. Friend agree that as well as playing a vital role in NATO, it is important for the UK to continue to lead the joint expeditionary force?

James Heappey: I certainly do. NATO has been the absolute cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security since the end of the second world war, and long may it continue to be so. Neither the JEF, the EU nor anything else should be seen as an alternative. However, there is a market for complementary organisations such as the JEF, which do not require consensus. The JEF is absolutely showing its value in the way that it is being used at the moment.

Carol Monaghan: The veterans strategy action plan includes a commitment to address the historical hurt or disadvantage that sections of the veteran community have experienced. Will that include compensation for LGBT veterans?

Leo Docherty: I look forward to announcing further progress on the review in due course. I do not want to pre-empt the terms and conditions of the chair, but I think that they will be reassuringly broad.

James Gray: While it is perfectly true that any sensible person in the west would rather President Putin were not the President of the Russian republic, does the Minister agree that it is vital that we reiterate at every second that we can that NATO is a defensive alliance among 30 members and that we will react if one boot goes over the line on to NATO land, but the presidency of Russia must be a matter for the Russian people, not for us?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend is correct. NATO is a defensive alliance, and we are working closely together. As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said, we are undertaking measures to ensure that NATO retains that deterrence and defensive posture that is appropriate in these times. However, we are focused bilaterally on Ukraine and on supporting Ukraine—that is the focus of our policy.

Andrew Gwynne: At the last Defence questions, I got what I hoped was an encouraging answer on behalf of the nuclear test veterans for what will be the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear tests. Will the Minister update us on where we are in recognising those veterans and their families for their sacrifice?

Leo Docherty: This continues to be under review. I look forward to updating the hon. Member in due course.

Michael Fabricant: Ministers have said that we have supplied 4,000 NLAWs and other equipment and deployments, and that we are supplying 6,000 more. Meanwhile, Germany says that it will supply 1,000 and France has not stated what it will supply—as far as I know, nothing has been supplied—so what advice do we give to our colleagues in Europe about how to get their equipment into Ukraine?

James Heappey: It is not just advice; we offer a service whereby we will go to countries around Europe and pick up stuff and ensure that it gets to Ukraine. At the international donor co-ordination centre in Stuttgart,  which I had the pleasure of visiting last week, the UK’s 104 Brigade headquarters is the global lead on co-ordinating how all that lethal and non-lethal aid arrives in countries that neighbour Ukraine and how it is moved on thereafter.

Richard Holden: With the next generation Challenger 3 turrets being built in the north-east, supporting hundreds of jobs, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory working with Newcastle and other local universities and Cook Defence Systems in my constituency providing armoured  vehicle tracks for not just British tanks but those of NATO and European allies, will my hon. Friend ensure that the north-east’s firms and workers remain at the heart of British defence procurement?

Jeremy Quin: They are. Last Thursday, I had a great day opening the AI hub for DSTL in Newcastle and pressing the button to start production of the turrets for our Challenger 3 tanks, to which my hon. Friend referred. There is a great history of defence manufacturing in the north-east, and it will have an even greater future.

P&O Ferries

Louise Haigh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the conduct of P&O Ferries’ chief executive and board and the action the Government will take to safeguard jobs.

Robert Courts: I know that the whole House has been left appalled and angered by the behaviour exhibited by P&O Ferries towards its workers over the last week. As a Government, we will not stand by and allow hard-working, dedicated British staff to be treated in such a manner.
This morning, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary wrote to the chief executive of P&O asking him to pause and reconsider and to offer his workers their jobs back on their previous terms, conditions and wages, should they want them. That is because we will return to the House to announce a package of measures that will ensure that the outcomes that P&O Ferries is seeking to achieve through this disastrous move to pay less than the minimum wage cannot be seen through. As a result, it will have no reason left not to reconsider its move.
As I said to the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last week, as soon as the package of measures has been finalised, we intend to return to the House so that Members can rightly scrutinise it. In the meantime, we continue to review the contracts that P&O Ferries has with the Government, and the Insolvency Service continues to investigate the actions of Peter Hebblethwaite, who brazenly admitted to breaking the law before two Committees of this House last week.
I am clear that P&O Ferries cannot and will not be allowed to get away with its actions. I hope the whole House will now support our efforts to ensure just that.

Louise Haigh: I thank the Minister for that response. As he said, on Thursday the chief executive of P&O Ferries made a mockery of the rule of law in this country. As a result, seven of P&O’s eight ferries are now stuck in port, and on Saturday the European Causeway—the only passenger ship in Europe to be prevented from sailing over safety concerns—was seized.
P&O Ferries must face the most serious consequences for its misconduct. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State feel the same way, and I appreciate the contact they have made with the Opposition and trade unions, but every available tool at the Government’s disposal must now be used to force P&O Ferries to reinstate workers on the previous terms and conditions.
Will the Minister provide some urgent clarity? First, the Prime Minister said very clearly on Wednesday:
“we are taking legal action…against the company concerned”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 326.]
So has the Secretary of State given his direction to prosecute? If not, why not?
Secondly, given that the chief executive has shown no respect for the law, will the Secretary of State seek his  removal under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and the removal of all those who authorised this unlawful action?
Thirdly, the Secretary of State has said he will review contracts, but livelihoods are on the line now, so will he suspend all contracts and licences of P&O and DP World today? Why is DP World still listed as a member of the Government’s trade advisory group?
Finally, time is running out. The deadline set by P&O for this Thursday for workers to agree severance amounts to extortion and has no legal basis. What powers do the Government have to extend that unlawful deadline? As the Minister said, workers must be reinstated on the same terms as before. Many are paid above the minimum wage, so will he commit to working with the unions and all ferry companies to agree a binding framework that will prevent a race to the bottom to the lowest international standards?
I know the House agrees that we must send a clear message that rogue employers cannot get away with trampling over the laws of this country. It is time to throw the book at P&O and save this loyal workforce.

Robert Courts: The hon. Lady is quite right that P&O must face consequences for its actions. We are looking at every tool available to the Government and doing so as fast as is humanly possible. We are looking to bring forward a package of measures. I apologise that I cannot go into any more detail at the moment—some of these matters are complicated and we need to go through them—but we will speak to Members and to the unions as we put the package together.
The Secretary of State has made his views known very clearly, as did I when I came to the House when the announcement was made and when I appeared before the Transport Committee. The letter the Secretary of State has written is absolutely clear about the view we take of P&O’s actions, and we will act on that.
The hon. Lady mentioned several other matters. We continue to review any contracts that may exist and continue to take any action we can on things like trade advisory groups. I hope the hon. Lady will pardon me for not going into detail at the moment. We will come forward with a package of measures that we will take, as I said we would when I was before the Select Committee. We are putting that package together as I speak and will of course work with the unions and all others as we do so.

Natalie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for working so closely with me and others since P&O took this disgraceful decision. Does my hon. Friend agree that the minimum wage proposal is a floor and not a ceiling? It would put ferry workers in the same position as other workers in this country and defeat P&O’s agency foreign workers model, such that P&O should just reinstate the Dover workforce now, on their current terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government measures that are coming forward this week will support ferry operators and ferry workers and safeguard the Dover-Calais route for the future?

Robert Courts: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her fearless championing of her constituents. There is no one who speaks out with more persuasion, force  and passion than she does for the people of Dover and her constituents, and I pay tribute to her for that. She asks whether the national minimum wage is a floor, not a ceiling, and I am very keen to say that there is a package we are considering. We will come to the House and explain what that package is in due course, and I hope the House will look forward to and welcome that when it comes.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: Can I, through the Minister, thank the Secretary of State for what he has said and the content of the letter that he and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sent to P&O today? These actions have been utterly reprehensible, but I do have to ask where the progressive zealot intent on protecting jobs was when British Airways threatened to fire and rehire 30,000 staff. If some action had been taken at that point, we might not have been in this position today with P&O. However, it is better that a sinner repenteth, and the Government are indeed on the right side of the road now, which I very much welcome, because the actions of P&O are abhorred by everyone not just in this House, but right across the country.
The Minister said in his response to the shadow Secretary of State that he cannot give any details now, but can I please reiterate that the deadline is on Thursday and this place breaks for recess on Thursday? This is of the most urgent nature, and we need details on that as soon as possible.
The Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—this is my final question, Mr Speaker—have written to the Secretary of State today with a number of points, including stating:
“The Government should prosecute P&O Ferries and remove its licence to operate in the UK.”
What consideration is the Minister giving to this action, and to showing P&O that it cannot operate where it does not abide by the law?

Robert Courts: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is quite right that, in reality, this is something that unites the House. Whatever party, wherever we come from and whatever our politics, we are all disgusted by the way that P&O has behaved. He is quite right, and I am very aware that the deadline is pressing, which is why the Government are working so hard on this. As soon as we are able to do so, we aim to come back before the House and update the House on the package of measures we are looking to take—[Interruption.]
Sorry; the hon. Gentleman reminds me, as I am on my feet, that there are a couple of questions I have not answered. I will consider the point he has raised about licences in particular, and we can consider that as we are going along. I know that some letters have been written. I have not yet seen those, but I will be very keen to see the suggestions that are made in those as well. As I said when I was in front of the Transport Committee last week, I am very keen to work with the Select Committee and the unions on any constructive suggestions they have made. If you will pardon me for taking just a second longer to say this, Mr Speaker, there have been some very constructive suggestions from all sides of  the House.

Virginia Crosbie: Stena is one of the largest employers in my constituency of Ynys Môn, and Holyhead is the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK. The news about P&O last week was felt with palpable anger and shock. I have spoken to Stena seafarers such as David Gwatkin and Mark Harrison on the Stena Adventurer, and they are quite rightly concerned about their jobs. Will the Minister confirm to my constituents that he and the Secretary of State are doing everything they can to ensure that this despicable, callous behaviour never occurs again?

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend speaks with enormous power and passion for her constituents in Ynys Môn, and I pay tribute to her for that. The distress felt by seafarers of all companies has been absolutely palpable over the last week. Clearly, those at P&O are in our hearts and minds, but equally there are those with other operators who are worried about their livelihoods. It is precisely the case that we are taking the time we are because we want to be able to provide the reassurance to others, no matter where they work or who they are employed by, that their livelihoods will be secure.

Peter Dowd: I appreciate the Minister’s comment about DP World or P&O Ferries being on the advisory group, and that he will look at this as part of a package, but can he just tell us today whether part of that package is going to be to take DP World off the Government’s advisory body? That would send a fantastic message right now to the company that its behaviour is unacceptable. Will the Minister send out that message now, not ask us to wait for the package?

Robert Courts: I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he would like me to say a number of things and to send such a message now. The message will be sent. I hope he will forgive me, but I want there to be a package that we announce to the House so that the House can scrutinise it, rather than announcing things piecemeal. We will come to the House, and we will explain what all those are.

Simon Jupp: I thank my hon. Friend for the strength of the Government’s response to the moral bankruptcy that P&O Ferries demonstrated at the Select Committee last week, and I welcome the Government’s commitments to protect seafarers in the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that every step needs to be taken to ensure that seafarers are properly protected in the future?

Robert Courts: Moral bankruptcy is precisely the point; my hon. Friend puts his finger on it. We are taking every step. We will come forward with a package. We want to make sure that we get this right and are keen to make sure that people are protected.

Karl Turner: We know that the unions met P&O Ferries on Friday—unsurprisingly, perhaps, the company was treating those unions with utter and complete contempt. I think the reason is this: the penny has not yet dropped for P&O Ferries that, very soon, legislation will come into force that will remove the incentive to exploit foreign agency workers at the expense of British seafarers. Will the Minister pick up the phone to P&O Ferries today and directly ask the chief exec to extend the clock for accepting what are essentially illegal offers? They are not redundancy offers—they are illegal.

Robert Courts: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has been extremely constructive, for his input into this issue. I am grateful for it; I am taking it extremely seriously, and I am considering it all. I hope he does not mind if I say that at the outset.
The Secretary of State has already done more than make that phone call: he has written in no uncertain terms, in public, asking the company to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am not surprised that P&O has treated the unions with contempt, as the hon. Gentleman says; that is how we have seen it behave across the whole of this matter. It is deeply regrettable, and I urge the company to treat the unions and its workers with respect.

Stephen McPartland: I come from a family of seafarers. The behaviour of P&O has been arrogant, disgusting and unacceptable. I am grateful to the Minister for the strong action that he and the Secretary of State for Transport have taken. Will they send a strong message to the chief executive of P&O and say from the Dispatch Box that he should resign for his behaviour?

Robert Courts: Yes, absolutely. The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear: he has said in terms that the chief executive’s position is untenable, and I agree.

John Martin McDonnell: May I raise again the fact that the shipping companies have received over £2 billion of tonnage tax concessions, and P&O has been a major gainer from that? May we have an assurance from the Government today that no tonnage tax relief is now being paid to P&O and that, if necessary, we should seek to receive back some of the tonnage tax concessions that it gained? Why did it gain them? As a result of a commitment to protect and increase the number of British seafaring jobs.

Robert Courts: I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we will be considering any actions that we can take. We will announce those as part of the package.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for what the Secretary of State and the Minister have done. I just do not understand how a minimum wage, which by definition is a minimum, cannot be paid to people. Perhaps the Minister can explain that to me.
I take what the Opposition have said; we really need to hear in this House what the measures are. I understand why the Minister wants to make a package of announcements, but will he ensure that there is an oral statement before Thursday, when we go into recess?

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I agree with him. The House does need to know what the measures are, and we intend to return to the House as soon as possible to make that statement.

Sammy Wilson: I also welcome the messages on safety, consultation and wages that the Government are sending out. I have spoken to workers affected in Larne, in my constituency. What they clearly want to see is the kind of sanctions that will be placed on the company to make sure that it obeys. As we have seen from the evidence it gave last week, the company still seems to think that breaking the law is okay.

Robert Courts: The right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the centre of the issue—thinking that breaking laws is okay. We saw an extraordinary display last week, when the CEO came here, brazenly admitted breaking the law and said he would do it again. We will make it absolutely clear that that is not acceptable. We will announce later in the week how that will be done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if we delay until then.

Katherine Fletcher: I have been speaking to people in South Ribble, and it is safe to say that P&O’s reputation is absolutely in tatters at the moment. Many people say that they will never use the company again. Through the Minister, I thank the Secretary of State for his strong letter this morning. Does the Minister agree that the chief executive officer of P&O Ferries should strongly consider his position?

Robert Courts: I do.

Diana R. Johnson: Following the question from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), will one of the package of measures that the Minister said he will be announcing later this week be the removal of the chief executive as a director, under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986? Is that under active consideration?

Robert Courts: I know a number of Members wish me to start talking about individual measures, and I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not. We will come to the House and explain that package of measures, and we are clear about the position of the individual in question: his position is untenable and he ought to go.

Stephen Hammond: Experienced crews are familiar with safety requirements. Will the Minister assure the House that a full safety inspection will take place before any vessel or ferry leaves port?

Robert Courts: Yes, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has detained one vessel to ensure that has taken place. I have total confidence in the MCA, and it will ensure that any vessel is safe before it sails.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to that question, surely the results of those inspections will be published in full, so the public can have confidence in what is being done. It appears that, as well as being in breach of its duty to inform the Secretary of State about its intentions, P&O is also in breach of its duty to inform flag states. Do the Government intend to pursue that matter?

Robert Courts: We are considering any options that may be relevant after the actions of P&O last week. We will consider all of them.

Laura Farris: One of the most damaging concessions made to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last week was that it was cheaper for P&O to dispense with its section 188 consultation obligations, and that it was more cost-effective for it to pay 800 protective awards and then move to agency worker rates of £5.50 an hour—below the national minimum wage. It is doing that by paying the British  national minimum wage up to the limit of British territorial waters, and then moving to rates of below £2 an hour. I know how hard my hon. Friend is working on this issue, but we do not have such measures in the airline industry when people move between jurisdictions. Will he look carefully at the territorial limit of national minimum wage obligations?

Robert Courts: I will indeed, and that is one of the issues we are discussing. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it, and I thank her for her expertise.

Bill Esterson: I was at the port of Liverpool on Saturday, and I met sacked P&O seafarers from Liverpool and from Larne. They had come across using a different carrier to show their solidarity with their Liverpool comrades. They told me about the MCA inspection in Larne, which kept the vessel in port. I will pass on their message to the Minister: they want their jobs back on their existing terms and conditions. They do not want just a review of the licences; they want proper action. They want the Government to show that they really are on their side, and not to leave any doubts about whether they are on the side of billionaires from Dubai.

Robert Courts: I can be absolutely clear: we are on the side of the workers, and we will explain what we are going to do in the House later this week.

Mark Pawsey: I congratulate the Minister on the robust approach that the Government have taken to this matter. Many small business owners and managers work long and hard to get personnel matters right, to do the right thing, and to comply with employment law. What signal will it send to them if P&O Ferries gets away with wilfully ignoring the law?

Robert Courts: That is a signal we cannot have. We cannot have any company wilfully ignoring the law, and we want to ensure that every company knows that it must do the right thing.

Mick Whitley: The Government’s response to the mass sackings of 800 P&O workers has been shameful. Ministers failed to step in and save jobs, and in October they refused to support Labour efforts to outlaw fire and rehire. They are not seeking to disqualify P&O’s chief executive from holding a company directorship, for brazenly and knowingly breaking employment law. Many of my constituents employed in the maritime industry are afraid that their jobs could also be under threat. Will the Minister urgently commit to introducing legislation that will guarantee that the strongest employment protections are available to everybody working in the UK maritime industry, so that no one is ever treated in as contemptible a way as the 800 P&O workers were?

Robert Courts: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s way of describing the Government’s approach—I do not think we could have been any more robust—but the overall thrust of his point, that workers should be protected, I agree with. We will come to the House and explain how we are going to do that as soon as we possibly can.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but two of my neighbours and constituents, with a combined service period of 51 years, were laid off  by email last week. They are understandably upset that they do not know whether money is coming into their households going forward. Can the Minister assure me that at the heart of the package of measures he will be introducing—I understand he cannot go into detail—are workers’ rights, so that in future no company like P&O will be able to take such actions?

Robert Courts: Yes, that is precisely what we aim to achieve.

Ian Mearns: I was heartened when the Minister, in opening, said he will not stand by and allow workers to be treated in such a manner, but P&O’s arbitrary and illegal deadline of 31 March for all sacked ratings to sign the severance package, which effectively buys their jobs but also seeks to use a legal device to muzzle them, is this Thursday. When the Minister says he is going to bring a package to this House as soon as possible, as soon as possible must be before Thursday.

Robert Courts: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the way these people have been treated is not on. It is absolutely unacceptable. This is complicated, so there are a number of things we just have to go through to get this right. As soon as we can come back to the House we will, but in the meantime the letter the Secretary of State has written makes precisely the demand that the hon. Gentleman asks for.

Richard Holden: I thank the Secretary of State and the Department for the robust way they have taken on P&O over its disgraceful actions over the last few weeks. Can the Minister confirm a couple of things? First, will all contracts and relationships that P&O has with the Government be under review? Secondly, will he block the outcome that P&O is after, specifically trying to pay workers less than the minimum wage? Thirdly, does he agree with me that the CEO should either resign or be sacked immediately?

Robert Courts: My hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points. We will consider them as part of the package, but I can assure him that the thrust of what he is seeking to achieve is the same as the Government’s.

Dan Carden: The problem we have here is that we have had fire and rehire with British Gas and British Airways, and I remember warm words from Ministers just a few months ago but no changes to the outcome. The words of my fellow Liverpudlian, Frank Cottrell-Boyce, that Tory MPs protesting the behaviour of P&O bosses is
“Like your neighbourhood arsonist offering you a flask of tea over the smoking ruins of your house”
come to mind. Will Ministers now look at whether they can commit to securing a collectively bargained fair pay agreement for the entire sector?

Robert Courts: We will consider all suggestions made by hon. Members across the House and I thank them for them. We will announce to the House in due course the measures we propose to take.

Allan Dorans: What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments to discuss  the impact of P&O’s actions? What efforts has he made with Cabinet colleagues to end the utterly despicable practice of fire and rehire?

Robert Courts: At a time like this, conversations take place across Government and across the devolved Administrations to consider what action we can take together.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for his statement. I hope he introduces legislation very quickly. In that legislation, will he also take on board the scandal of the way seafarers are treated in international waters generally—they suffer from low wages, poor conditions and terrible working arrangements—which has been exposed by the P&O scandal? We need to address the issue of fairness and justice for all seafarers. As a major seafaring nation, we can take the lead on that.

Robert Courts: This country absolutely is a major seafaring nation and has taken the lead already; for example during the pandemic when we were the first country to declare seafarers as key workers and took the issue of their rights to the International Maritime Organization. I am very keen that we continue to take the lead. The right hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a number of really pertinent issues.

Ellie Reeves: Before I entered Parliament, I was an employment rights lawyer for more than a decade, and in all that time I do not think I ever saw such blatant disregard for the law or contempt for workers’ rights. This Government say that that is wrong, but the reality is that it has been allowed to happen under their watch. They have failed to ban fire and rehire; they have failed to extend the national minimum wage to seafarers; and if it was not for the legal challenge from Unison, we would still have fees for the employment tribunal. It is no wonder that employers think they can get away with it. When are this Government finally going to stand up for workers’ rights?

Robert Courts: Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is just wrong on a number of points. For example, in regulations from 2020 the national minimum wage was extended to the vast majority of seafarers working on the UK continental shelf, so she is just wrong about that. There is an issue here that we are seeking to address, and we are addressing it.

Barry Gardiner: After Peter Hebblethwaite admitted to the Select Committee that he had broken the law and would do so again, the nation has concluded that he is not a fit and proper person to be a director of P&O, or indeed of any company. When will the Government also reach that conclusion and disqualify him? When will they seek to ensure that workers onshore are not treated with the same contempt as those seafaring workers have been, and make sure that people cannot be fired in such a way, whether they are working for Weetabix, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, British Airways, British Gas or any of the other companies that have done the same thing over the past two years?

Robert Courts: The Government have reached the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman about Mr Hebblethwaite, and that is why the Secretary of State has written to him in the terms that he has done today. It is a matter for a court, not the Government, to disqualify a person. That would be an unusual position for any Government to take, as I know the hon. Gentleman will understand. We are looking to see what else we can do to protect workers in this sphere, as I have explained, and I look forward to updating the House before the end of the week.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for taking such a robust stance on this issue. May I invite him to make it absolutely clear that the despicable action of P&O Ferries is not connected in any way with P&O Cruises, because there is some concern about that? P&O Cruises is a completely separate company, owned by a separate organisation, and it is concerned that it may lose bookings as a consequence.

Robert Courts: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no connection whatsoever between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises. They are wholly separate organisations, separately managed. No blame whatsoever for the actions of P&O Ferries attaches, or should be seen to attach, to P&O Cruises.

Clive Efford: The chief executive of P&O came into this place where the laws of the land are made and told us that he broke those laws in a premeditated way. He went on to compound the situation by showing scant regard for safety measures on his ships, resulting in their being impounded. Knowing all that, does the Minister not think that the chief executive deserves to be summarily dismissed, and should the Minister not make sure that that is done immediately, regardless of any package that he will bring forward?

Robert Courts: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s state of shock at the statement that Mr Hebblethwaite made in front of the Select Committee last week. The Secretary of State and I also share the view that Mr Hebblethwaite’s position is untenable. We have told him that he ought to go, and I urge him to take that on board very seriously.

Chris Matheson: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is absolutely right. These are not redundancies, because the positions are not redundant; crew are still needed to man those ships. The fact remains that it is cheaper, quicker and easier to sack British workers than it is to sack workers anywhere else in Europe. When the Minister brings forward this package, will he have a discussion with the rest of Government and say that the time has come for proper employment rights in the UK?

Robert Courts: I take on board entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The most important thing we have to do now is to make sure that the rights of those workers, and others in a similar position, are protected. Government will be taking note of any lessons that we might have to draw in the wider sphere, but it would be precipitative of me to make any commitment about that.

John Cryer: The Minister has been given example after example of fire and rehire this afternoon; every hon. Member, unless they have been living on another planet, is acutely aware of all those examples from the last two or three years. At what point will the Government say, “This is wrong. It should be illegal”?

Robert Courts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not really a fire and rehire situation, but we are absolutely clear that the way that those workers have been treated is wrong. That is why I have said in no uncertain terms that we are bringing forward a package of measures and I will be able to update the House before the end of the week.

Kate Osborne: Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have received advice from the Insolvency Service? If so, can he confirm that P&O, simply by not notifying the flag states of the intended redundancies within the prescribed time limits, has committed an offence that could and should lead to an unlimited fine being imposed? If not, will he bring forward legislation to correct that position retrospectively and make that unlimited fine happen?

Robert Courts: It would not be normal for any Minister to comment on the legal advice that has been given, but I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, which is why we have asked the Insolvency Service to investigate in these circumstances. I take on board her suggestion, as I do those of all hon. Members, and we will update the House on that package shortly.

Richard Burgon: Dockers in Rotterdam refused to load freight on to a ferry in support of 800 unlawfully and illegally sacked P&O workers. Does the Minister endorse that action in support of saving those 800 jobs? If so, why is it good enough for workers and trade unions in Rotterdam but still illegal in this country to take solidarity action?

Robert Courts: This is a Government who are standing up for workers. We have been absolutely clear about our condemnation of the way that P&O workers have been treated in this case and we will be taking action, which I will explain in due course.

Nick Smith: The P&O pension pot has a shortfall of £147 million. P&O’s parent company, DP World, has previously sponsored a golf tournament to the tune of £150 million. Does the Minister agree that P&O’s parent company should step in and pay up  so that workers’ pensions are secure for the future? Will he add that to his package that needs sorting out?

Robert Courts: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I think that DP World and P&O should get together, talk to their workers and look after them, which they have not done so far.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister’s response there was interesting. DP World is the parent company and has corporate responsibility for the actions of P&O Ferries. Has anybody picked up the phone to the Government of the UAE, who have responsibility for DP World, to say that this situation is simply not good enough and not good for their reputation?

Robert Courts: We have been absolutely clear, when we have written to P&O, that the decisions that it has taken are absolutely catastrophic for its reputation and we have said the same thing to DP World.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister is absolutely right that this is not fire and rehire, because the P&O workers have not even had the indignity of being offered back their contracts on lesser terms and conditions. The flippant disregard for the UK workforce, the contempt for the rule of law and the disgusting abuse of foreign workers in what can only be described as slave labour are not just wrong; it is not on. I hope that when the Minister comes back to the House with his detailed package, we will be not just tough in words but tough in actions and tough on P&O.

Robert Courts: I agree with the hon. Member that the way that the workers have been treated is absolutely not on. We have been absolutely clear about that and we are keen not on words but on action.

Rachael Maskell: What is worse is that DP World and P&O Ferries were prepared to put untrained crew and passengers on to those ships and for them to sail, which is completely against health and safety measures. There is therefore something at the core of the company’s culture that needs to be addressed and that must result in the licence being removed, because it is clearly prepared to be unsafe and break the law.

Robert Courts: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. The thing that I hope will give her confidence is that we have the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, in which I have full confidence; it is an outstanding safety regulator. It inspects all those ships and if they are not safe to sail, they will not sail.

Schools White Paper

Nadhim Zahawi: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the publication of the schools White Paper.
Since 2010, we have been on a mission to give every child a great education. We have made huge strides, but we know there is still further to go on that journey, which my predecessors began and I am proud to lead today. Too many children still do not get the start in life that will enable them to go on and make the best use of their talents and abilities. Sadly, disadvantaged pupils or those who have special educational needs are less likely to achieve the standards we expect for them. Since 2010, we have been rolling out many changes to our education system—changes that have driven up standards, lifted us up the league tables internationally and given us measurable evidence of what works. We will now put that evidence to use and scale up what we know will create a high-quality system for children, parents and teachers.
We have an ambition that by 2030 we will expect 90% of primary school children to achieve the agreed standard in reading, writing and maths. In secondary schools, I want to see the national GCSE average grade in both English language and maths increase from 4.5 in 2019 to 5. By boosting the average grade, we show a real determination to see all children, whatever their level of attainment, do better. A child who goes from a grade 2 to a grade 3, or one who goes from a grade 8 to a grade 9, contributes to that ambition as much as a child on the borderline who may go up from a grade 4 to a grade 5. So every parent can rest assured that their child is going to get the attention they deserve, however well they are doing.
It goes without saying that every child needs an excellent teacher. This White Paper continues our reforms to training and professional development, to give every child a world-class teacher. The quality of teaching is the single most important factor within a school for improving outcomes for children, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our vision is for an excellent teacher for every child in our country, but if we are to do that, we need to make teaching even more of an attractive profession. To make sure that it is, we will deliver 500,000 teacher training and development opportunities by 2024, giving all teachers and school leaders access to world-class evidence-based training and professional development, at every stage of their career. We will also make a £180 million investment in the early years workforce. Teachers’ starting salaries are set to rise to £30,000, as we promised in our manifesto, and there will be extra incentives to work in schools with the most need.
A world-class education also needs environments in which great teaching can have maximum impact. Therefore, we will improve standards across the curriculum, behaviour and attendance. Making sure that all children are in school and ready to learn in calm, safe, supportive classes is my priority. All children will be taught a broad, ambitious, knowledge-rich curriculum and have access to high-quality experiences. We will set up a new national curriculum body to support teachers, founded on the success of the Oak National Academy. This body  will work with groups across the sector to identify best practice, deepen expertise in curriculum design and develop a set of optional resources for teachers that can be used either online or in the classroom. These resources will be available across the United Kingdom, levelling up education across our great country. We will continue to support leaders and teachers to create a classroom where all children can learn in a way that recognises individual needs and abilities. In addition, we are going to boost our ability to gather and share data on behaviour and attendance. We will move forward with a national behaviour survey to form an accurate picture of what really goes on in schools and classrooms and, of course, to modernise our systems to monitor attendance. We will introduce a minimum expectation for the length of the school week to the national average of 32-and-a-half hours for all mainstream state-funded schools from September 2023, at the latest. Thousands of schools already deliver that but a number do not and that needs to change.
Too many children, especially those who are most vulnerable, routinely fall behind and never catch up with their peers. The awful covid pandemic has made that worse. Even though I am relieved to tell the House that the latest research on learning loss and recovery shows that pupils continue to make progress, there is still much more to do. That is why today’s White Paper sets out a really ambitious plan for scaling up that recovery, building on the nearly £5 billion of recovery funding that has already been announced.
My children are the most important thing in the world to me and I know that I am not alone in saying that. All parents want their children to be happy and to grow up to a future that is full of promise, so I am today making a pledge to parents; it is a pledge from me and this Government via schools to all families. The parent pledge is that any child who falls behind in English or maths will receive timely support to enable them to reach their potential. A child’s school will let parents know how their child is doing and how the school is supporting them to catch up.
Tutoring has been a great success and that is making a difference. It is here to stay and we want it to become mainstream and a fundamental pillar of every school’s approach to delivering the parent pledge. There will be up to 6 million tutoring packages by 2024.
We know that the approaches that I have outlined make a huge difference to pupils, so I have asked myself this. We have 22,000 schools in England; how do we ensure that these happen systematically in every school for every child? How do we get that consistency across the system? It has become clear from my six months in the Department studying the evidence that well-managed, tightly managed families of schools are those that can consistently deliver a high-quality and inclusive education. It is one where expertise is shared for the benefit of all and where resources and support can help more teachers and leaders to deliver better outcomes for children.
With that in mind, by 2030, we intend for every child to benefit from being taught in a family of schools, with their school in a strong—I underline the word “strong”—multi-academy trust or with plans to join or form one. That move towards a fully trust-led system, with a single regulatory approach, will drive up standards. We also want to encourage local authorities, if they think that they do well in running their schools, to establish  their own strong trusts, and we will back them. There will be a clear role for every part of the school system, with local authorities given the power that they need to support children. We will set up a new collaborative standard requiring trusts to work constructively with other partners.
I know from my experience in business and in rolling out the covid vaccine that the hardest thing for any complex system, whether it is health or education, is scaling up, but I have faith both in the brilliant leaderships that we already have in our school systems and in our educationalists to be able to deliver on this White Paper. We want to spread brilliance throughout our country, levelling up opportunity and creating a school system where there is a clear role for every part of the system, all working together and all focused on one thing: delivering outstanding outcomes for our children.
Soon, everyone will see what we all know—that this Conservative Government are busy making our schools the very best in the world. We should be so proud of how far we have come and rightly hopeful about where we are going next. For that reason, I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Bridget Phillipson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement today. It has been a little over two years since schools were closed to most pupils and almost 12 years since his party came to power, yet among the many reannouncements that we heard over the weekend, the big ideas were that three quarters of our schools should carry on as normal, teaching the hours that they already teach; that when children are falling behind, schools will be there to help; and that the national tutoring programme—described by providers as being at risk of catastrophic failure—is the answer to all our problems.
Is that really it? Is that the limit of the Secretary of State’s ambition for our children and for our country? He rightly stresses the need to be evidence-led. Is that all he thinks the evidence supports? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I expected good order to be kept during the Secretary of State’s statement, which in fairness it was, and I certainly want the same for the shadow Secretary of State. If somebody does not want to keep good order, will they please leave now?

Bridget Phillipson: The Secretary of State rightly stresses the need to be evidence-led. Is that all he thinks the evidence supports, or is it all he could persuade the Chancellor to support?
The attainment gap is widening. Performance at GCSE for our most disadvantaged kids was going into reverse even before the pandemic. After two years of ongoing disruption, it is clear enough where the focus should be. The Secretary of State says that he has ambitions, but they are hollow—hollow because they are wholly disconnected from any means of achieving them, hollow because there is no plan to deliver them, but also hollow because there is no vision for what education is for, what growing up in our country should involve and what priority we should give our children.
We are two years into the pandemic. Two years is a long time, and an important time—half a lifetime for the children starting school in September. We can all see the impact that the years of disruption, botched exams, isolation and time spent at home has had on our children, yet time and again the Government fail to grasp the truth that time out of education for children and young people means more than time out in the rest of their lives. Instead, our children have been an afterthought for this Government—a Government who showed their priorities when they reopened pubs before they reopened schools, a Prime Minister whose own adviser on education recovery resigned in despair, a Department that closed schools to most children with little thought for how it would repair the damage or reopen them safely.
Labour listened to parents and young people and set out the children’s recovery plan that our children need and our country deserves—breakfast clubs and new activities, quality mental health support in every school, small group tutoring for all who need it. Our children have waited long enough. When will they see a recovery plan that rises to the generational challenge staring us all in the face? Only today, the Department published research setting out that in reading in particular, pupils are falling further behind and the disadvantage gap is widening.
It goes deeper than just the past two years. We see the value and worth of every child. We see them as ambitious and optimistic, with dreams for their future. We see the role of a Government as one of matching, not tempering, that ambition. Education is about opportunity; we want opportunity for every child, in every corner of our country, at every stage.
We want childcare that is high-quality, affordable and available, not a cost that prices people out of parenting. We want every parent to be able to send their child to a great local state school, which is why we would launch the most ambitious school improvement plan for a generation, focusing on what happens inside the school, not the name above the door. We want teachers supported to succeed, not leaving the profession as they are doing, which is why we have set out plans for career development and for thousands of new teachers: because the success and professionalism of our teachers enables the success of our children.
We want to see our children not just achieving, but thriving at school, with a rich and broad curriculum that enables them to flourish. We want to give children and young people real choices and see them succeed through strong colleges and apprenticeships. That is why we would deliver work experience, careers advice and digital skills for all our young people so that everyone leaves education ready for work and ready for life. That is why today’s White Paper represents such a missed opportunity.
However, for all the disappointment that we feel on these Opposition Benches, echoed by school staff and school leaders across our country today—and the Secretary of State, in his heart, probably feels that disappointment himself—it is our children, whose voices are rarely heard in this place, who are the real losers today.

Nadhim Zahawi: I was hoping for a plan, but none was forthcoming. The hon. Lady spoke about schools being closed. Labour, dancing to the tune of its union paymasters, wanted to keep them closed. If the hon.  Lady thinks that that is a plan, perhaps she should go and visit one of those schools, as I did earlier today with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). If she had been with me at Monega school in Newham and observed the brilliant leadership of Liz Harris and her team, she would know that our reforms are working. There is a family of schools in a high-performing trust which is delivering for those children, 24% of whom are on pupil premium. Great leadership and great teachers are being supported by a fantastic teaching hub within the group that is part of that trust, delivering great outcomes for children rather than playing politics with our education system.
I seem to recall that it was the leader of the hon. Lady’s party who wanted schools to remain closed—and, of course, wanted to pause the whole vaccination campaign so that we would lose three months before we could vaccinate teachers. Because we did not do that, and because so many of the Leader of the Opposition’s Back Benchers went against him, we continued to vaccinate, we protected teachers, and we got schools open again.
The hon. Lady spoke about our standing in the world rankings. I can share with her the information that England achieved its highest ever scores in both reading and maths in two international comparison studies, the 2016 progress in international reading literacy study and the 2019 trends in international mathematics and science study. In 2019, following the introduction of the phonics screening check in 2012, the proportion of year 1 pupils meeting the expected standard rose from 58% to 82%, and the figure rose to 91% among those in year 2. That is a record of real delivery for young people of which the Government are proud. Of course we have had a pandemic since then, but the £5 billion invested in our recovery is making a real difference.
The hon. Lady questioned that recovery, and questioned what the national tutoring programme was achieving. We have just announced that the NTP has delivered 1 million 15-hour blocks of tutoring. It will meet its targets. School leaders told us that they wanted a school-led pillar—as well as the other two pillars which are also delivering—and we have provided that for them. Evidence that we published today, to which the hon. Lady referred, suggests that since the spring of 2021, primary school pupils have recovered about two thirds of the progress that was lost owing to the pandemic in reading, and about half in maths. That is real delivery.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the White Paper. I think that we are seeing the beginnings of a long-term plan for education, especially given tomorrow’s publication of the special needs review and the publication of the care review. The Government have begun to provide a washing line for all the clothes pegs of different educational initiatives. The parent pledge and the catch-up plan are also important.
The White Paper refers to a knowledge-rich curriculum. I am thoroughly in favour of that, but what about a skills-rich curriculum to sit alongside it? I see that the skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), is paying close attention. Such a curriculum would prioritise skills including oracy  and financial, technical and vocational education, reverse the huge decline in design and technology skills, and prepare students better for the world of work.
What does the White Paper do for children from care backgrounds, exclusion backgrounds and special needs backgrounds who underperform in GCSEs to such an extent in comparison with their peers? We know the grim statistics. How will this White Paper help them? How will the curriculum better prepare pupils for the world of work? Perhaps one of the most important priorities is the 124,000 Oliver Twist ghost children, who are possibly on our streets. What is he doing about those children who have not returned since schools reopened last year?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee. He raises a number of really important questions. He is absolutely right to identify that the schools White Paper, with the SEND Green Paper—which we will consult on and publish tomorrow and share with the House—and the children’s social care review by Josh MacAlister, will for the first time give us the ability to knit together a system that delivers for all pupils, especially those with SEND and those that are most vulnerable in the care system. On financial education, the Schools Minister is looking at how we can take that further and embed it in the education system. My right hon. Friend will also know that I walk around the country wearing on my lapel a TL badge, which stands for technical level. T-levels are a fusion of A-levels and the great work we have done on apprenticeships, and that is what we will do to ensure that children have the runways that their career path can take off on. He is right to remind us of the 124,000 children who are out of education. That is why, for the first time in our country, we will have a register to ensure that we know exactly where those children are. There are many parents who deliver great home education, some of whom are in my own constituency, but many children are lost in the system and we have to make sure we know where they are.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This has to finish by 5.15 pm, so please help each other by being short and sweet with questions as well as answers.

Kate Green: It is good that the Secretary of State has clearly been listening to the concerns of the profession, of parents and of young people since he came into post, but I am afraid that his announcements today are underpowered because of the funding pressures that will continue in the system. Schools continue to face covid costs and they continue to face rising salary costs, which are not being fully funded by the Department. These include the increased starting salary for new teachers, which is still on the horizon and not yet delivered. Schools also face rising energy costs and all the other pressures that organisations are facing. In particular, the Secretary of State will know that there is particular funding pressure in relation to pupils with SEND. What is he doing to ensure that schools have the funds they need to rise to the ambitions he has set out today?

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Lady is right to say that there are many pressures on schools at the moment. The funding we secured at the spending review was £7 billion,  with much of it—£4 billion—frontloaded to this year and next year. Energy costs are rising—they are 1.4% of the schools budget. A big part of the budget is obviously wages. We are keeping an eye on what is happening to energy costs in schools. On SEND, we have put in an additional £1 billion, so the total budget now stands at £9.1 billion, plus an additional £2.6 billion to ensure that we deliver the specialist provision that we need in the system, because there has been a lack of confidence among parents as to whether their child will get the right provision. Today’s White Paper supports mainstream schools to all be great SEND schools as well.

John Redwood: How will the poorly performing schools get the brilliant teachers and better professional development that the Secretary of State rightly wants, because that is what they need?

Nadhim Zahawi: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We endowed the Education Endowment Foundation when the coalition Government came into office, and I have just announced a further endowment for the next 10 years. It has evidenced the qualifications and quality of teacher training that are required, whether in the early careers framework, initial teacher training or later in life in professional development, and we are following that evidence and scaling up half a million teacher training opportunities. That has never been attempted, certainly in my time in Parliament; it is a huge scale-up of teacher training and that is what we will deliver.

Karin Smyth: When he was confronted on yesterday’s “Sophy Ridge on Sunday,” the Secretary of State could not answer a question on the shocking fall in per pupil funding, particularly compared with private schools. My child, like thousands of children, started school just before this Government came into power and they are just about to finish. The Secretary of State talks about a parent pledge. Will he apologise to the thousands of parents and young people for what this Government have done to per pupil funding over the last 12 years?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Lady’s question. As I described, standards have consistently gone up because we have introduced things such as the phonics screening check. We are investing £7 billion in education, with £4 billion frontloaded for this year and next year, to make sure that schools have the funding they need. Andreas Schleicher of the OECD was in my office telling me that, actually, the United Kingdom is in the top quartile for investment in our school system. That is what this Government are doing, and this White Paper takes the evidence for what works and scales it for every child in this country. I want to see every child have the opportunity I had to achieve to the best of their talent.

Desmond Swayne: Teacher training has often been part of the problem. By what mechanism will my right hon. Friend prevent any return to the half-baked theories that proved to be a disaster in the classroom?

Nadhim Zahawi: We will be evidence-led. We are also launching the Institute of Teaching to deliver the high standards on which my right hon. Friend rightly focuses.

Tim Farron: In Cumbria, we have some of the best schools in the country, but we also have some of the smallest because the communities they serve are often half empty—homes are not lived in because they are owned by second homeowners. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree it is right to tax second homeowners at least twice the rate of council tax and to use that funding to make sure rural community schools have the support they need to do the job at which they are so good?

Nadhim Zahawi: We are supporting small rural schools through the national funding formula to make sure they have the funds they need.

Laura Trott: I welcome the White Paper, particularly its ambitions on literacy and numeracy. Will Ofsted reinforce those ambitions through data-led interventions where they are not being met?

Nadhim Zahawi: Ofsted’s 2019 framework has, in many ways, helped schools both to focus on literacy and numeracy and to have a knowledge-rich curriculum, from which this White Paper does not deviate. We are working in lockstep with our colleagues in Ofsted to make sure we deliver the highest-quality outcomes for children. If we focus on outcomes, we will not get it wrong.

Janet Daby: I am not convinced that the Government are listening. They do not have the support of the National Association of Head Teachers, the Association of School and College Leaders or the National Education Union for this White Paper. If the Secretary of State is really listening, headteachers are telling me that they need the classroom support teachers who have been so drastically cut over the years by this Tory Government.

Nadhim Zahawi: I remind the hon. Lady that there are now 217,000 teaching assistants in classrooms, a 6,000 increase since 2010.[Official Report, 30 March 2022, Vol. 711, c. 5MC.] I speak to ASCL and the other unions to share evidence and to share our work on the White Paper, and they have been engaging with us. The Education Endowment Foundation, which provides evidence in other areas, has an excellent review of how best to use teaching assistants. Every school should look at that review.

Steve Brine: I had my latest session with Hampshire County Council on Friday to go through every school in my constituency. The Secretary of State will be pleased to know that every single one is good or outstanding—the last one will be there very soon.
I am concerned about access to child and adolescent mental health services, as children cannot learn if they are not in the right place mentally. I am also concerned about small rural primaries. The heads of such schools in my constituency will take some convincing that being part of a large multi-academy trust is the answer to their problems. Given what the White Paper says about all children being in an academy, can the Secretary of State convince me of why the evidence says that is the answer?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend asks a number of questions, which I will try to unpack. We will say more on our work with the Department of Health and Social Care in the SEND Green Paper tomorrow. Suffice it to  say that local evidence, the dashboard and that transparency will lead to much better outcomes for families and children. He is right about rural primaries; I have similar high-performing rural primaries in my constituency. My message to them is that they do an excellent job and, if they feel that they want to get together with other rural primaries, we will support them in setting up a multi-academy trust. Alternatively, where local authorities think they do a great job supporting their schools, they can set up trusts. With the White Paper, I am trying to ensure that we take everyone with us on this journey because, ultimately, if we all remember what we are in this for—to deliver better outcomes for every child at the right place and the right time for that child— we will do the right thing.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I just need to reiterate that we need one question each, so that the Secretary of State does not have to answer a number of questions, and the questions need to be brief, not with long statements beforehand. Barry Sheerman will lead the way in how to do that.

Barry Sheerman: Thank you for those kind words, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State knows I have admired him in the past as a manager and a man with passion, but this is not much of a plan. Any plan needs people to lead and deliver it, but we now have weak local authorities, a weak central Government Department for Education and a weak Ofsted. If he really believes the leadership will come just from academy trusts, I do not think we will achieve very much.

Nadhim Zahawi: This White Paper will define the role of each of those stakeholders that the hon. Gentleman just described in the system. With that clarity, and the support for good leaders in local government, good leaders of multi-academy trusts and—to push back slightly, with respect—the great leadership in Ofsted, we will deliver for those children that we all want, and I know he wants, to see delivered for.

Maria Miller: I welcome the White Paper and my right hon. Friend’s real focus on excellence in our schools, but we can only deliver world-class numeracy and literacy if schools are safe places to learn. The Government’s own inquiry last year pointed out that every school should assume that its students experience sexual harassment and online abuse at school, so will he include as central to his plans the culture in our schools and the roll-out of relationships and sex education?

Nadhim Zahawi: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. I was in the Department when we rolled out relationships education and relationships and sex education in the curriculum, teaching young people what healthy relationships are like and how to identify unhealthy and abusive behaviour. That is a priority for me and it is in the White Paper under paragraph 80.

Diana R. Johnson: The Secretary of State speaks about levelling up opportunity. In some of the most disadvantaged areas, including my own constituency, we have the excellent  Hull and East Yorkshire Children’s University, which provides a rich source of experiences and support for pupils and schools. Will he say something about his plans to harness the expertise of organisations such as children’s universities and give them sustainable funding so they can get to work on that levelling-up agenda that the Government talk so much about?

Nadhim Zahawi: That is exactly what this White Paper will do and it is why the issue of teaching is so important to our plan. I will certainly have a look at the children’s university the right hon. Lady mentions. Anyone who wants to join us on this journey is most welcome, and we want everyone to come along because, if we deliver for every child, we will have done something great for the future of our country.

Jonathan Gullis: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper and thank him for the fact that Stoke-on-Trent is now an education investment area priority, which comes with additional investment for our local area. I also thank him for the fact that the levelling-up premium to recruit and retain some of the best teachers across the country has been adopted from the Onward and New Schools Network report that I did on levelling up education. Most importantly, we want some of the best multi-academy trusts, which for too long have been clustered in the south, to come up to Stoke-on-Trent. How does this White Paper enable that to happen?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend has always been a great champion for his schools and speaks with real experience as an accomplished teacher in his own right. He is right that we need our best, highest-performing multi-academy trusts to lift their ambitions. This White Paper will deliver that, including additional funding of £80 million to get that momentum going again. We are about to announce our 10,000th academy and we have 22,000 schools in England. I am ambitious for every part of the country, and we will deliver that ambition in Stoke-on-Trent as well as in other parts of the country.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his choice of Monega Primary School for his speech this morning.
Some multi-academy trusts are a bureaucratic mess at the moment. I welcome the proposal to allow local authorities to set up and lead trusts. Does he also have plans, as has been reported, to allow schools to exit MATs that do not suit them and to increase the accountability of trusts to local authorities?

Nadhim Zahawi: Yes, we do. The White Paper speaks to this. We will consult on the regulatory framework around trusts so that the best-performing trusts have the confidence to join us in making sure that we get that framework right.

Stephen Hammond: Some 15% of children have special educational needs and disabilities. How does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that any conclusions on reforms from the SEND review are aligned with and implemented alongside the White Paper?

Nadhim Zahawi: That is exactly what we have done. I hope that we can demonstrate in today’s work, but also in tomorrow’s Green Paper, the knitting together of how we deliver support to parents of children with special educational needs in our mainstream education system, because every mainstream school should be a great SEND school. There is also the work we are doing on alternative provision. We will set out more details tomorrow.

Munira Wilson: With the first schools White Paper in six years coming on the back of a pandemic that was so brutal for our children and young people, this really feels like a missed opportunity for children, parents and school staff up and down the country. Where is the ambition in this? This is a unique opportunity to broaden the offer in terms of the academic achievement and broader life skills that parents and employers want, as well as wellbeing. Has the Secretary of State had his hands tied by a Chancellor who is more focused on his own ambition than the ambitions of our children and young people?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s question, because I briefed her personally on the details of the White Paper. Nevertheless, if she reads the White Paper, she will see that we are ambitious for a knowledge-rich curriculum but have also made it very clear that we will have a strategy for everything from sport to music to culture, because the evidence is that everything from extra-curricular activities to pastoral care and behaviour makes the real difference in providing the high-performing school standards that I want to see in every part of the country.

Nicholas Fletcher: This is great news for the young people of our country. Specifically, it is good news for the people of Doncaster, as Doncaster is now a priority education investment area. That will give my young constituents the boost they need to level up their opportunities. My only concern is that while I welcome the half a million teacher training opportunities, will this not result in more teacher training days and therefore more days out of school for our young learners?

Nadhim Zahawi: No.

Ian Mearns: As a member of the Education Committee of just short of 12 years, I have to say that an evidence-led policy would be a welcome departure for this Government. On teacher recruitment and retention, there is a bit in the White Paper on aims to improve the workforce, but not on the “how” and the “what with”. There is no involvement by teaching universities in the Institute of Teaching. With recruitment and retention continuing to pose enormous challenges for many schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, the White Paper pays scant attention to how schools in those areas will be able to recruit and then retain specialist teachers in, say, maths or physics.

Nadhim Zahawi: We are making sure that, especially in education investment areas, teachers in subjects like maths and physics have an incentive, with £3,000 tax-free. Many of them will want to go to those areas if they feel they have the support in place. That is why we want a strong family of schools working together in high-performing multi-academy trusts to offer the support that we saw so visibly during the pandemic.

Katherine Fletcher: I thank the Secretary of State for the focus on outcomes, which is so important for the children of South Ribble. Three of my constituency’s primary schools have joined with two primary schools in South Ribble borough to form the Axia Learning Alliance, a co-operative trust, which I confess to knowing little about. Will the Secretary of State and his Ministers consider such trusts as part of his future proposals?

Nadhim Zahawi: It is through the multi-academy trust—that family of schools that is tightly managed and high performing—that we think we can deliver the greatest outcomes for children. I will happily look at what my hon. Friend’s schools are doing, but outcomes are delivered through schools being strongly held together and really well managed, as well as through the sharing of evidence.

Bill Esterson: The White Paper says that it
“marks the start of a journey”.
Quite why it has taken 12 years to start a journey to raise standards will be beyond the understanding of most parents, staff and children. If the Secretary of State wants to learn from the evidence of successful and sustained improvement in schools, will he apply the lessons of collaboration and support from the London challenge, which transformed education standards in the capital and did not involve a name change on the badge above the door?

Nadhim Zahawi: I will look at any evidence and learn from it. The hon. Member speaks about what we have done. I remind him that in 2019, 65% of key stage 2 pupils reached the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths, and we want to go much further—to 90%—but the 2019 figure was a seven percentage points increase in reading and a nine percentage points increase in maths since 2016. That is what we have done.

Martin Vickers: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and, in particular, the focus on multi-academy trusts, of which we have some successful ones in northern Lincolnshire. However, education, like the rest of the public sector, finds it difficult to attract the best quality professionals to that part of the country. Will he reassure me that there will be focus on that and that he will work with schools and councils to achieve that?

Nadhim Zahawi: Yes, very much so. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the most valuable resource on earth is human capital, and that is why we are flexing the system towards education investment areas and priority education investment areas. We will deliver high-quality, highly qualified teachers so that schools in those areas get the same benefit as others around the country. I do not believe that people are less talented in Knowsley than in Kensington; the difference is that they do not have the same opportunities. I am absolutely passionate about ensuring that we deliver on that.

Andrew Gwynne: Education is a big passion of mine, and I thank the Secretary of State for his recent announcement that Tameside will be an education improvement area. With that, the focus on skills, outcomes and opportunities is key, but that is not  possible in substandard education buildings. It would be remiss of me not to mention Russell Scott Primary School in Denton, which has been dubbed Britain’s worst rebuilt school and for which a bid is in to the Department for Education. Can we have the new school that those kids so desperately deserve?

Nadhim Zahawi: I know that the hon. Member is passionate and appreciate that he wants to work constructively. I know that the bid is in—the Minister for School Standards is looking at all bids—but he makes a powerful point, and I will happily work with him, because I know that he will care about the evidence; unlike, sadly, his Labour Front-Bench colleagues.

Mike Wood: Having married into a family of teachers, I know how talented and passionate many of our teachers are. However, many teacher training courses include very little content on learning difficulties or speech and language conditions. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all teachers receive the special educational needs and disability training that they need through initial teacher training and continuing development to give every child the best possible start in life?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend raises a powerful point. We are considering a national professional qualification for special educational needs as well as early intervention. He will hear more about that from me tomorrow in the Green Paper announcement.

Mohammad Yasin: Schools in Bedford and Kempston, like those everywhere else, have been through the most difficult period of disruption, and have had to do so on reduced budgets. Not once in any of the conversations I have had with heads, teachers or parents, who are desperate for support, has anyone asked for more targets. If targets were not being met before the pandemic, why does the Secretary of State think that increasing them is going to do anything but create more stress for children and drive more teachers from the profession?

Nadhim Zahawi: I hope the hon. Gentleman was listening when I spoke about England rising up the international league tables around the world. That is because we are so focused on making sure that we back our teachers, train them well and then, of course, target our efforts, including on such successful programmes as the phonics screening check. I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman: we need targets. That is why the primary target of 90% for achievement in maths and English and the GCSE average grade target going up from 4.5 to 5 are so important.

Mark Pawsey: The Secretary of State and I both have excellent Warwickshire grammar schools in our constituencies; will he say a little about the role of grammars in the raising of standards?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question. I have in my constituency three grammar schools, all of which are high performing. We want to spread the DNA of grammar  schools across the system. There are 165 grammar schools in an education system with 22,000 schools. Many grammar schools have already joined and are leading high-performing, strong multi-academy trusts. I want more of them to do the same, and they will join us on this journey.

Daniel Zeichner: I am concerned that the Secretary of State may be underestimating the damage that has been done to some children by the isolation during the pandemic—that is certainly what I hear from schools in Cambridge. That damage can be addressed through more interventions and more resources; is there anything in the White Paper to address that in a county such as Cambridgeshire, which remains one of the most poorly funded in the country?

Nadhim Zahawi: Mental health is one of the areas we have been looking at with the Children’s Commissioner, including through her very good “The Big Ask” survey of half a million children. In May last year, we announced £17 million of investment to build mental health support in education settings. We have invested further to make sure that the mental health leads in more than 8,000 schools and colleges have the necessary support and knowledge to support young people.

Ben Spencer: I welcome the White Paper and thank my right hon. Friend for his passion and drive to deliver the best possible education to all children throughout the country, no matter whether they live or what their background is.
This morning, I caught up with some of my local school leaders, as I do regularly, and although they were interested to hear about what was coming up in this announcement there was naturally a bit of trepidation about further change on the back of the covid pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure the changes are streamlined so that they cause as minimal an amount of disruption for school teachers as possible?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The frontline—the 461,000 teachers and 217,000 teaching assistants—and the support staff and leaders in our education system have gone above and beyond to make sure that schools reopened, stayed open and dealt with omicron.[Official Report, 30 March 2022, Vol. 711, c. 6MC.] We have looked carefully at the evidence, which is why one of the things we have not done is change the curriculum. A knowledge-rich curriculum is important to make sure we deliver the outcomes we so passionately want to deliver for young people.

Clive Efford: If the Secretary of State is to deliver on this package, which has been announced 12 years into a Conservative Government, he is going to have to fund it. If we want decent teachers at the front of classrooms, we are going to have to pay them, so where is the funding for decent teachers in this package? If we are to improve schools, they need the resources; is anything in this package going to increase per-pupil funding?

Nadhim Zahawi: We are investing £7 billion, with £4 billion front-loaded this year and next year, and there is £5 billion for recovery. That is the investment. That is the commitment that we make when we speak,  as I did this morning, to great school leaders like the great head at Monega. She will tell the hon. Gentleman that this is doable. The team at Monega has turned the school around in five years and it is now an outstanding school. We want to spread that good practice and quality leadership across the system.

Richard Fuller: I thank the Secretary of State for his ambition and for making Bedfordshire an education investment area, but I draw his attention to a particular point in his White Paper, which refers to work
“to scrutinise and challenge off-rolling”
from schools. He will know that, unchecked, off-rolling can undermine trust, even in the best systems, so will he pay particular attention to that?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in knitting together a system between our White Paper and the SEND and AP Green Paper, I have the opportunity to make sure that such behaviour no longer happens and that alternative provision is not seen as a sort of warehousing for forgotten children, because high-quality alternative provision has a place and a role to play in our education system.

Layla Moran: Education is the joint top sector affected by long covid—joint with social care, and above healthcare—but I have not yet seen anything from the Department on how MATs will help teachers with long covid. For example, I am aware of a headteacher who has chosen to take early retirement because they kept getting written warnings from the MAT, rather than being supported. That is not going to help workforce retention. Would the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can support teachers and heads who have long covid?

Nadhim Zahawi: I will happily meet the hon. Lady.

Greg Smith: The ambition for all children that shone through my right hon. Friend’s statement is to be warmly welcomed, but at the start of his statement he rightly acknowledged that children with special educational needs are less likely to achieve the ambition we all want for them. In my constituency, time and again I hear too many heartbreaking cases from families, where one of the causes is the length of time it takes for an EHCP to be signed off. Can he give me an assurance that the action coming from this White Paper and tomorrow’s SEND review will tackle that barrier?

Nadhim Zahawi: Yes, I can.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The parent pledge that the Secretary of State delivered today is ambitious and entirely necessary. A report in Northern Ireland has shown that children are eight months behind where they would normally be. The White Paper today is for England and Wales, but the problem is UK-wide, so the solution must also be UK-wide. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with devolved counterparts to ensure that this is the approach in every area of the United Kingdom?

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Member will know that education is devolved, but we happily share all the evidence. We share our strategy with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, and in the spirit of collaboration I am happy to continue to share the evidence. England has in many ways been evidencing what works, and we are happy to share that.

Jack Brereton: I very much welcome Stoke-on-Trent being announced as a prioritised education investment area, which will help to continue the significant work being done to improve standards in education that teachers have been working on in Stoke-on-Trent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving standards of education is absolutely vital both to levelling up standards and to unleashing the real potential of places such as Stoke-on-Trent?

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree. I am the beneficiary of great education, of which the greatest determinant is having a great teacher or an inspirational teacher in the classroom. That is why much of the focus of this White Paper is about backing teachers, and making sure that they get the qualifications and the professional development that they need to do their job properly.

Neil Hudson: I very much welcome the positive and progressive statement from my right hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the pupils and teachers in my constituency of Penrith and The Border for all their resilience and tremendous hard work throughout the pandemic. However, can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that pupils will receive all the targeted and tailored support and tutoring they need and, more broadly, the mental health and pastoral support they need?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend raises two excellent points. The work we have done on the national tutoring programme has allowed us to make the parent pledge, because I saw the evidence of how, when an individual child has gaps in their knowledge, the focus on engagement with parents makes a real difference. Of course, his point on mental health I addressed earlier.

Miriam Cates: As a parent and a former teacher, I wholeheartedly welcome this White Paper. It is ambitious, but it is also a common-sense approach. I particularly commend the use of common-sense, plain English in the White Paper, which is very accessible to parents. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could pass on some tips to other Departments. I want to pick up on a phrase that is mentioned a couple of times in the White Paper, which is that
“the quality of teaching is the single most important in-school factor in improving outcomes for children”.
I completely agree with that and I welcome the reforms to teacher training, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that children spend most of their time at home, rather than in school, so can he set out how this will work alongside the Government’s programmes on strengthening and supporting families, because that will have just as important an effect on improving outcomes?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend raises a really important question. I have focused the Department on skills; the skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood  and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and the Minister for Higher and Further Education are both on the Front Bench. Later today, we will vote through what will then become, I hope, the revolution in the skills landscape that this country so badly needs and deserves.
From skills to schools: the schools White Paper delivers on what we want to achieve—making sure that every child has the opportunity of a great education in the right place and at the right time for them. Then there is family: families are important, whether in mainstream education or when it comes to children and the social care system. My hon. Friend will hear more from us about the family hubs that we will deliver in half of England’s local authorities.

Antony Higginbotham: Since 2010, the number of good and outstanding schools in Burnley and Padiham has increased. We can see in pupil attainment the impact that has had. That is not just numbers on a page, but life chances improving in our local communities. That is why we need to drive even harder, because education is the heart of levelling up. Will the Secretary of State set out what the White Paper will do for pupils who need targeted intervention in individual subjects, to help drive them forward?

Nadhim Zahawi: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He will, I hope, see in the annex to the White Paper the evidence that strong, high performing multi-academy trusts really do deliver the best outcomes. That is my vision for the whole country.
The parent pledge, yes, is about children who fall behind in English language and maths, but teachers who I have seen in those high performing multi-academy trusts also look at other subjects as well as pastoral care and curriculum work. That makes the difference.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for his excellent statement today. I also endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee on the importance of oracy skills in schools; I went to see an excellent initiative in Serlby Park Academy in Bircotes, in my constituency.
The Government have a commitment to getting 90% of primary school children up to reading, writing and maths standards by 2030. Does my right hon. Friend agree that driving up those standards in primary schools improves outcomes not only at that stage, but throughout a child’s and young person’s entire educational journey and beyond?

Nadhim Zahawi: The wise words of a great teacher and a great headteacher.

Ukraine

Elizabeth Truss: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to update the House, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, about the NATO and G7 leaders’ meetings in Brussels last week. Together with our allies, we agreed to keep the pressure up on Putin to end his appalling war in Ukraine through tougher sanctions to debilitate the Russian economy; through supplying weapons to Ukraine and boosting NATO’s eastern flank; through providing humanitarian aid in dealing with the wider consequences of the crisis; and through supporting Ukraine in any negotiations it undertakes.
Strength is the only thing Putin understands. Our sanctions are pushing back the Russian economy by years and we owe it to the brave Ukrainians to keep up our tough approach to get peace. We owe it to ourselves to stand with them for the cause of freedom and democracy in Europe and across the world. It is vital that we step up this pressure. We cannot wait for more appalling atrocities to be committed in Ukraine. We know that the impact of sanctions degrades over time, and that is why we need to act now.
Next week, NATO Foreign Ministers will meet to follow up on the statements of leaders. I will be pressing our allies over the next weeks for all of us to do more. On oil and gas, the UK has already committed to ending imports of Russian oil by the end of this year. We must agree a clear timetable with our partners across the G7 to end dependence on Russian oil and gas permanently. On banks, we have already sanctioned 16 major Russian banks. We have hit Gazprombank and placed a clear prohibition on Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank. We want to see others adopt these sanctions and go further.
On individuals, we have cracked down on oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich. Last week, we sanctioned the despicable Wagner Group of mercenaries. On ports, Britain has banned entry to Russian vessels at all our ports. I will be lobbying our partners across the G7 to join us in stopping Russian ships.
We must maximise the flow of weapons that are being supplied to Ukraine under the United Nations charter of self-defence. The UK was the first European country to start sending lethal aid to Ukraine, and we are doubling our support with a further 6,000 missiles, including next-generation light anti-tank weapons, and Javelin anti-tank weapons. We are equipping our Ukrainian friends with anti-aircraft Starstreak missiles. We are also strengthening NATO’s eastern flank, deploying troops to Bulgaria, and doubling the numbers of troops in Poland and Estonia.
We are co-ordinating deliveries with our allies, and we want others to join us in getting Ukraine what it needs. The UK is providing £220 million in humanitarian support to help the people of Ukraine, from shelters to heaters and medicine. Today we announced our partnership with Australia to fly out more relief, including blankets, cooking equipment and power generators. We are getting supplies directly into Ukraine’s encircled cities, with £2 million in canned food, water, and dried food. As refugees come into countries such as Poland, we are working with the UNHCR so that it is informed about  the UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. That scheme has already had more than 150,000 applications, thanks to the generosity of the British public.
We know that Putin is not serious about talks. He is still wantonly bombing innocent citizens across Ukraine. That is why we must do more to ensure that he loses and we force him to think again. We must not just stop Putin in Ukraine; we must also look to the long term. We must ensure that any future talks do not end up selling out Ukraine, or repeating the mistakes of the past. We remember the uneasy settlement of 2014, which failed to give Ukraine lasting security. Putin just came back for more. That is why we cannot allow him to win from this appalling aggression, and why this Government are determined that Putin’s regime should be held to account at the International Criminal Court.
We will work to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We have set up a negotiations unit to ensure that the strongest possible support is available to the Ukrainians, alongside our international partners. We have played a leading role alongside our G7 allies in driving the response to Putin’s war, and I want to ensure that that unity continues. Sanctions were put on by the G7 in unison, and they should not be removed as long as Putin continues with his war and still has troops in Ukraine. That is not all. We must ensure that Putin can never act in this aggressive way again. Any long-term settlement needs to include a clear sanctions snapback that would be triggered automatically by any Russian aggression.
In the aftermath of Putin’s war, Ukraine will need our help to build back. In these exceptional circumstances, we have a duty to step up with a new reconstruction plan for rebuilding Ukraine. We will work with the international community to do that. At this defining moment, the free world has shown a united response. Putin is not making the progress he craves, and he is still not serious about talks. President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people know that everybody in the United Kingdom stands firm with them. We were the first European country to recognise Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. Thirty years on, we are the first to strengthen its defences against Putin’s invasion, and lead the way in our support.[Official Report, 29 March 2022, Vol. 711, c. 4MC.] Over the next week, I will be working to drive forward progress in unison with our allies. Together, we can secure a lasting peace that restores Ukraine’s sovereignty. Together, we can ensure that Putin fails and Ukraine prevails. I commend this statement to the House.

David Lammy: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, and the continued briefings on Privy Council terms.
It is now more than a month since Vladimir Putin launched his barbaric and illegal invasion, with horrifying results: buildings razed to the ground, maternity hospitals bombed, and the city of Mariupol turned into a living hell. Ukraine is the victim of a bandit regime that is willing to use violence in an attempt to subjugate its neighbour. But 24 February marked not only an attack on the people of Ukraine; it was also an attempt to crush the values of democracy, rule of law and freedom that we all enjoy. There can be no excuses for Putin’s actions, and one day soon I hope he will be held to account for what I consider to be war crimes.
Day by day, it has become clearer that despite Putin’s brutal tactics he is not winning. A month ago, many people gave Ukraine’s resistance little chance. Many expected Russia’s armed forces to sweep into Kyiv in days, frankly, yet still Ukraine’s forces hold firm. Their skill, bravery and resolve has inspired the world. Putin’s invasion may have stalled, but the threat he poses remains. Reports suggest he may be seeking a way out. We want to see an end to the bloodshed, and the restoration of Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty.
I am sure the Foreign Secretary will agree with me that any ceasefire agreement must enjoy the full support of the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and that, if an agreement is reached, there will be no return to the previous status quo in our economic relationship with Russia. Putin’s regime must still pay a long-term cost for its war of aggression. We must decisively end our dependence on fossil fuels and move rapidly towards cheap, home-grown renewables to support our energy sector. We must complete the unfinished task of ending Britain’s role as the hub of dirty money from Russia and elsewhere. As this war remains in the balance, we must do what we can to ensure that we tip it towards Ukraine.
I am pleased that the NATO, EU and G7 summits last week reinforced western unity. It is right that NATO has agreed to bolster the eastern flank, with the approval of four additional battle groups. I welcome the commitment to increase and strengthen capabilities, as well as cyber-security assistance, financial aid and humanitarian aid, but can I ask the Foreign Secretary what is the scale of the UK’s contribution? Last week’s commitment shows NATO’s long-term strategy is quickly evolving. Other European allies who are reviewing defence spending are boosting their armed services. I was in Berlin last week, where our colleagues in Germany have committed to a historic investment in defence. Finland, Sweden and Denmark all announced reviews or extra resources for defence. Does the Foreign Secretary really believe it is right at this time for the UK to cut the Army by 10,000 in the next few years? If not, will she act on Labour’s call to halt those cuts?
It is time, too, for Britain to return to the table when it comes to European security. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the Prime Minister to stop picking petty squabbles with our neighbours on the continent and instead deepen security co-operation that will keep us all safe?
Last week, G7 and EU leaders focused on closing loopholes on existing sanctions rather than imposing new measures. There remain many gaps in the UK’s regime: trusts are not fully covered; many Russian banks are not designated, and ownership thresholds are too high. We need to ensure effective enforcement, including of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what her Government are doing to close those loopholes and whether she plans to put further sanctions in place?
A month on from this illegal invasion, the world has changed. The unity across this House, this country and the international community must endure. The next few days and weeks will be crucial, and we send all our support to the people of Ukraine. As this war enters a new phase, we must all adapt and hold our nerve. Through the darkness of terror and destruction, Zelensky’s democratic Government remain in control against all the odds. Bravery is shining through.

Elizabeth Truss: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this is about the future of freedom and democracy, and the future of European security. The Ukrainians and President Zelensky are fighting bravely. They are fighting not just for their own future, but all our futures, and they deserve all the help we can give them: humanitarian support, lethal aid, and the moral and diplomatic support that we are providing.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right to say that Putin must not gain from this appalling aggression. There will be no letting up on sanctions. We want to see sanctions tightening. Putin will pay the cost. He will be held to account in the International Criminal Court. We are working with our allies to collect evidence. Of course, we need to make sure that Ukraine is rebuilt following this appalling war and the appalling devastation that the people of Ukraine have experienced.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right that we want to see sanctions increase. In the case of banks, the UK has imposed the most bank sanctions of any of our allies. We want our allies to follow suit, and we want to do more in terms of completely de-SWIFTing the Russian economy and tackling banks of strategic importance, such as Sberbank. We also sanction more oligarchs and other entities than either the EU or the US does. We want to do more, we will do more and we want our partners to do more.
The most crucial thing of all is cutting off the supply of finance from oil and gas. That is what will completely debilitate the Putin regime, and that is why we want the G7 to agree a very clear timetable to end dependence on Russian oil and gas completely. It is vital that we never go back to being dependent on an authoritarian regime for core parts of our economic survival. With next week’s NATO summit, we have an opportunity to move forward with those plans. I encourage all our allies to work with us on this, because the only thing that Putin will understand is tougher sanctions and more defensive aid.
We have boosted our defence spending, and we continue in talks with our NATO allies about boosting the eastern flank. The UK is also leading with the joint expeditionary force, working with our allies around Europe. I talk to my European counterparts all the time. We are committed to boosting European security and working with our friends right across the EU.

John Baron: Perhaps for too long, the west has harvested the peace dividend, but there is no doubt that we have entered a new era in the battle for democracy globally. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do what she can within Government not only to make the case for a sustained and substantial increase in defence spending, but to ensure that our soft power capabilities are adequately resourced, for the very simple reason that jaw-jaw should always be preferable to war-war?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the peace dividend. The reality is that, right across the west, not enough has been spent on defence. Meanwhile, the Russians have been building up their armed forces, their military capability and their disinformation efforts. One thing I have done is to re-establish an information unit in the Foreign Office to tackle Russian disinformation. We are working to get  that information into Russia so that the people of Russia have a clear view about what is going on, in contrast to the propaganda from their Government. We are also working on expanding our soft power, whether it is through the BBC or other outlets, to get the truth across to the people of Russia. As to my hon. Friend’s other point, I am sure that he will be raising it with the Chancellor at Treasury questions very soon.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson, Alyn Smith.

Alyn Smith: I, too, am grateful for advance sight of the statement, and I commend the Foreign Secretary on the very open approach that she has taken to briefing parties across the House on this crucial issue.
The SNP stands part of the international coalition to defend Ukraine and international law, so I welcome the co-ordination across the EU, G7 and NATO. We support the provision of arms, and the further provision of arms, to Ukraine, and we particularly support the establishment of the negotiations unit to help the Ukrainians to negotiate properly. I share the Foreign Secretary’s scepticism about President Putin’s good faith, but let us remember that every single cold war dispute ended with a negotiated outcome of some sort, so we need to keep up that support. I also strongly welcome the support for accountability for war crimes, because we need to think towards the peace at the end of the war.
I am glad to see that sanctions are ramping up. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that the intention is that, if a person or bank is sanctioned in one G7 or EU territory, that will be mirrored across the other territories? When will that be achieved? I appreciate that we all come from different legal backgrounds, but I think it is important that we set a timescale for matching each other’s sanctions.
On refugees, there is considerable difference between the SNP and the Government. We would far rather have seen the UK mirror the EU’s approach by waiving visas for three years. We think that that would have been generous and proportionate, but it is not what happened. I welcome the fact that the Homes for Ukraine scheme has had 150,000 applications, but I think the far more meaningful statistic is how many of them have been fulfilled. Can she tell us that? If she cannot tell us that, we need to do a bit less self-congratulating about the Homes for Ukraine scheme—I say that constructively. Does she share my concern that the Home Office needs a lot more resource to process those applications properly, and can she confirm that that discussion is under way?
More generally, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the integrated review is now rather badly out of date? Will she give us any indication of the thinking within the Government about updating and refreshing it, because it strikes me that that needs to be done urgently?

Elizabeth Truss: On sanctions, it is worth saying that we are already aligned with our allies on key areas of sanctions, including banning Russian state and private companies from capital markets and stopping the Russian Government from raising sovereign debt. On oligarchs, we have now sanctioned more oligarchs than the EU or the US. We have also sanctioned more banks than the EU.
What we want to achieve next week is a levelling up across all the sanction areas. Some of that will mean other countries following what the UK has already done—for example, we have banned Russian vessels from UK ports, which I remember discussing a few weeks ago with the hon. Gentleman—and then we all need to go further. I am clear that we should all go further in terms of SWIFT; we want to see a complete ban on the Russians’ use of the SWIFT system.
We need to keep going with our allies, however, and that is the work that we are doing—putting pressure on and working with our allies. In the case of oil and gas, many European countries are heavily dependent on Russian gas and they need to find alternatives. We are helping and working on that, as is the United States, so this is very much a team effort.
On the Homes for Ukraine scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be issuing new information about that later this week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be keen to attend that session to hear more details.

Holly Mumby-Croft: My right hon. Friend mentions the BBC. At the top of the BBC News this morning was the news that an actor had walloped a comedian at an American awards ceremony. Does she agree that we must do all we can to ensure that the horrific stories that are coming out of Ukraine remain high on the news agenda? That is really important. Will she reassure my constituents that the Ukrainian situation remains at the top of her agenda and that she will continue the good work that she has been doing for however long it takes?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the priorities that people put on various events. What we have seen—the appalling aggression that we have seen in Ukraine—is an epoch-defining moment. We will absolutely not forget that, and we will not make the mistakes of the past, of ignoring and normalising Russian behaviour. This time, we must ensure that Putin loses and we must tackle Russian aggression for the long term. I will continue to work on that together with our allies across the world, and we will not let the issue drop.

Tony Lloyd: I point out to the Foreign Secretary that most of Ukraine’s neighbours are protected by EU and NATO membership. One that is not is Moldova, which has already taken in huge numbers of refugees. Does she agree that, particularly because of the situation of Transnistria, it is vital that we are able to offer some support to the democratic Moldovan Government, who share our values and aspirations but are in a parlous state?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman is completely right about Moldova. We are working closely with our allies to provide direct support to it and to help it with the refugee situation. That is something that we discussed at the G7 meeting and that we will be working on further over the next week.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend rightly refers to the necessity for a clear timetable with respect to Russian oil and gas. In particular, I would like to ask about the German issue, because Germany has a vast dependence on Russia, and it will take a considerable  amount of time to get that right—if it can ever be got right. How will the problem be resolved in the short term, because the problem for Ukraine is short term and the quicker we resolve it the better? The problem is that Germany is, effectively, bankrolling Russia at the moment.

Elizabeth Truss: I have been talking to my German counterparts, as has the Energy Secretary, about what can be done to work with Germany to help it move away from Russian gas, oil and coal. The United States has also been working with Germany and the EU on supplying liquified natural gas. Germany has undertaken a complete change in its energy policy and defence policy; it is now investing in new LNG terminals and looking at where else it can get that energy from. We are very keen to work with Germany, and indeed other European countries, because we cannot be in a position where Europe is dependent on Russian gas. That does not help the security of the German people and it does not help the security of the British people, so it is in our interests to work together to end dependence.

Layla Moran: All of us cannot help but be moved by the scenes that are still going on, not least with the 300 killed in the theatre just last week. Some 3.8 million people have now crossed borders into nearby countries and many of them will have ties to our country. We should all be proud of every person who has said that they want to take someone in. The Foreign Secretary will also know that many of these people are struggling for means—they left with nothing—and would even struggle to get on a flight to get to this country. Are the Government considering chartering airlift flights from the border so that those who can get through the mire of paperwork we have put in front of them—the Liberal Democrats have put on record that that should not be there—can get to this country and take up the safe homes that have been so generously offered?

Elizabeth Truss: We are working to support people who want to come to the UK, through the family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Considerable transport is being offered; Wizz Air is offering free flights to the UK and there are free Eurostar journeys as well. We are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make sure that that information is available. At present, the issue of getting to the UK is being resolved; as the hon. Lady says, we are making sure those visa processes are happening, and that is the responsibility of the Home Office.

Julian Lewis: Will the Foreign Secretary make sure that a reasonable proportion of the extra £4.1 million that the Government have rightly given to the BBC in respect of the World Service is earmarked for the BBC Monitoring service and, in particular, the Russian and Ukrainian parts of it?

Elizabeth Truss: Yes, I will make sure that that is the case.

Kevin Brennan: I am afraid that the system that the Foreign Secretary has outlined is not humane. My constituent’s mother-in-law is in Dublin, less than an hour’s flight from Cardiff, but she cannot come to stay with her family member in Cardiff because they are on a global talent visa for the next two years  and therefore do not qualify for the family scheme. They are being told to make the application under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. That is ludicrous, as they are in rented temporary accommodation while they are here. Will the Foreign Secretary have a word with her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to stop this nonsense and allow people in? If they were the constituency MP involved, every Member of the House would say the same as me: this situation is absolutely ludicrous. Can the Government do something about it?

Elizabeth Truss: I will certainly happily take forward the hon. Gentleman’s case with the Home Secretary.

David Mundell: Will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the humanitarian aid? As she is aware, many volunteers, such as those at the Ukrainian chapel in my constituency, have, in effect, stood back from the enormous efforts they were making in trying to get necessities to the Ukraine and the countries surrounding it. I am sure they will want to be reassured that the humanitarian effort being undertaken by the Government, and indeed by the Disasters Emergency Committee, is delivering what they would want it to deliver.

Elizabeth Truss: The DEC appeal has raised more than £200 million and we are deploying our aid into Ukraine. I talked about the work that we are doing with the Australians, and we are supplying food to the encircled cities. The biggest challenge—this a security challenge—is getting the aid into some of those cities. We certainly are well funded for the work that we are doing. The Ukrainian Government are providing a lot of the logistical support to make sure that the supplies get into Ukraine, but the issue is security. We have pushed very hard for genuine humanitarian corridors to be set up. I am afraid that the Russians have not properly done that and, in some cases, getting supplies in is dangerous. Constituents can be reassured that we have the funding and the supplies. The key thing that we are working on with the international agencies is making sure that the aid safely reaches its destination; that is the issue we face.

Caroline Lucas: In an FCDO press release last week, the Foreign Secretary said that Russian intelligence services have targeted UK national infrastructure in what she called a “calculated and dangerous” hacking campaign and that Putin is sowing
“division and confusion among allies.”
She rightly said, in that press release, that she “will not tolerate it”, so will she reassure the House that she is urging the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to open an investigation into the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report on Kremlin-linked influence in the UK? Will she admit that it is simply not helpful that that report has still not been investigated?

Elizabeth Truss: We have had that question before, and we have followed through on the report’s recommendations and on making sure that United Kingdom infrastructure is protected.

Alun Cairns: I commend my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the actions that they have taken to support Ukraine—which have been recognised by President Zelensky—including through humanitarian and lethal aid and by providing the most supportive scheme for families who are fleeing the horrors in Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a consequence for the western world—President Putin will have calculated that—through higher food prices and higher energy prices and an impact on the western world’s economies? Will she continue to play a co-ordinating role to ensure that the western world responds in the most robust way and that all Members of the House come together in recognising the impact?

Elizabeth Truss: It is certainly true that the crisis is having an impact on energy costs and food costs in the United Kingdom. The Chancellor announced measures in his spring statement last week to help to address some of those costs, but we have to be clear that the cost of doing nothing is huge. This is about European security and the future of freedom and democracy, and we know that the people of Ukraine are paying an incredibly high cost at the moment.
The other point that I want to make is that this is not just about the western world; there are real issues about global food security. One of the things that we are working on as part of our new international development strategy is making sure that we support people across the world. There will be increased demand for food. There are concerns about food supply. We are working very closely with our allies on how we ameliorate those effects, which if we do not get this right could have not just food security and humanitarian consequences, but global security consequences.

Toby Perkins: The Ukrainian army, with its skill and bravery, is showing that the Russian war machine can be stopped in its tracks. The Secretary of State said that we will learn lessons, one of which surely has to be about the British Army. Over 12 years we have seen a systematic reduction in the size of the British Army and there is a sense that the Government do not really have an idea of what they want the British Army to do. Can we expect a statement from the Government on stopping current plans for further reducing the size of the British Army and instead having a strategic approach which recognises that, alongside the cyber and terrorist threats, we need to be ready to face major state threats? That cannot be done overnight, because a huge amount of skill and experience has already been lost from the British Army. We need that investment and a strategic plan from the Government. Will there be a statement to say that we will get that?

Elizabeth Truss: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Operation Orbital, which was led by the United Kingdom and has trained up 20,000 Ukrainian troops, has been a very important part of the success of the Ukrainian forces in being able to resist. I pay huge tribute to the bravery of the Ukrainian forces. The UK has led on supplying that sort of support and training.
Of course we need a comprehensive offer. That is what we are doing: we are modernising our armed forces under the leadership of the Defence Secretary,  but we are also supplying more direct support into the eastern flank of NATO to make sure that we are protecting European security at this vital time.

Peter Bone: Evil human trafficking gangs are now operating in the countries bordering Ukraine. They prey on young women and older girls and promise them safe passage and a new home, but then move them hundreds of miles away and force them into prostitution. Let us imagine fleeing a war zone in Ukraine, reaching a safe country and then being locked in a room hundreds of miles away and repeatedly raped, day in, day out. May I ask the Foreign Secretary what the Government and NATO are doing about it?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend has a strong record of standing up against the appalling actions of human traffickers. He is absolutely right that there is a real risk at the border and that people are being threatened—women and girls are being threatened—with these appalling activities. A core part of what our humanitarian aid is supporting is the international agencies protecting against those activities, which of course are also subject to war crimes investigations. We are seeing appalling rape accusations in Ukrainian cities as well. The UK is leading on prevention of violence against women and girls and on tackling sexual violence as a red line in war, and we will continue to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has just issued a very strong appeal for an urgent and immediate ceasefire. What are the British Government doing to support his call before there is more bombing, more deaths and more people driven into refugee status? Could the UN be the medium for a longer-term peace conference that will bring about some degree—hopefully a real degree—of peace and security for people in the area? Will the Foreign Secretary say something about the very brave peace activists in Russia who have risked a great deal to speak out against this war?

Elizabeth Truss: Of course we completely support the UN call for a ceasefire. We have worked at the UN General Assembly to secure the votes of 140 countries against Russia’s appalling aggressive action. It is down to Putin and the Russian Government, who have pursued this aggression against an innocent nation that had done absolutely nothing to provoke it. I applaud those in Russia who are prepared to stand up against the Government and protest against this appalling war. Ultimately, it is for the Russian Government to stop their appalling aggression in Ukraine and withdraw their troops. That has to be the precursor to any peaceful resolution of this crisis.

Jane Stevenson: We have seen the incredible determination and bravery of Ukrainian forces defending their territory with many weapons sourced from the UK. I am delighted by the announcement that we are to send 6,000 more missiles. Defending Ukraine’s airspace is crucial—we hear pleas from Ukraine every day—so I am delighted about the Starstreak missiles that we are providing. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that in her upcoming meetings with our allies, she will encourage them to provide similar defences to enable airspace defence?

Elizabeth Truss: The weapons that we are providing, including the NLAWs and now the Starstreaks, are having a real impact in Ukraine. Those weapons are produced across the United Kingdom—the NLAWs, for instance, are produced in Belfast—so this is contributing to jobs and growth across the UK, and represents a very important export for us.
As for what more we can do, the Defence Secretary has already held a donor conference to encourage other countries to supply weapons, and we have seen many countries, including Germany, now come forward, supplying weapons into Ukraine. We are also working to supply logistics. We are co-ordinating the delivery of those weapons to Ukraine. As I said earlier in respect of humanitarian aid, the difficulty often lies in the final mile, getting the equipment in, and the UK has been leading the way in that regard.

Angus MacNeil: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary mentioned food security. It is apparently only 10 days until the planting season starts in Ukraine. That poses obvious problems, on which we need not expand here.
The Foreign Secretary talked about the need to go further and do more, but when it comes to refugees, unfortunately, the UK Government have gone almost nowhere and have done the least. Leading charities called today for the scrapping of the visa requirements, and it was reported at the weekend that a Conservative councillor had resigned from the party owing to the “hostile” and “xenophobic” policy on refugees. Surely now is the time to change that. It emerged this morning that Ireland has taken in 13,500 refugees. How many has the UK taken in, and will the Government go further and do more for refugees? Will they behave like normal humanitarian countries on this issue?

Elizabeth Truss: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that so far more than 20,000 individuals have been approved for the Ukraine family scheme. As I have said, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be giving an update on the Homes for Ukraine scheme later this week, but we already have 150,000 people registered. Progress is being made, and we are seeing more Ukrainians come to the United Kingdom.

David Morris: We have recently seen an incursion into the NATO zone by a drone, albeit an ancient drone, 30 years old, and with no markings on it. Given the conferences that will take place in the next few weeks, would it not be pertinent to start asking for a safe-to-fly zone so that we can protect our air zone on the borders of Ukraine and Moldova, and all the way up into the Baltics?

Elizabeth Truss: What we are doing is maximising the support that we are giving under the UN charter, which allows us to supply Ukraine in its own self-defence. That is effective: we are seeing the effectiveness of the NLAWs, and we are now putting in the Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles. That is the way in which we will support the Ukrainians in defeating Vladimir Putin and ensuring that he loses in Ukraine. A no-fly zone would mean direct NATO involvement in Ukraine, which is a very different matter from the defence that we are supplying under the UN charter.

Rachael Maskell: At the United Nations General Assembly, we have seen some key votes in which the vast majority of the world has come together to stand with Ukraine, but we have also seen first 37 and then 38 countries remain neutral, either actively or passively, by abstaining. What work is the Department doing to help those countries to move into a safer place, whether in the context of energy, food dependency or, indeed, their security?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady is correct. Many countries have been dependent on Russia, sometimes for defence support, sometimes for food, and sometimes for trade. What we need to do—and what we are doing, with our allies—is work to increase our trade links, our economic links and our defence links, as well as engaging with those countries to encourage them to see Russia’s actions for what they are.
If we live in a world where a sovereign state can simply be invaded with impunity, what does that mean for the future of those countries? That is the point that we are putting to all of them. At the same time, however, we recognise that there are genuine dependencies, so we have to help them to find alternative sources of trade, food and indeed defence support in order to encourage them not to side with Russia.

Mike Wood: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), can my right hon. Friend update the House on what conversations she had with our G7 and NATO allies when she and the Prime Minister visited Brussels regarding what we can do to bolster other vulnerable countries in the region such as Moldova?

Elizabeth Truss: We had thorough discussions with our NATO and G7 allies on how we can help Moldova in terms of direct humanitarian support, support with refugees and also defensive support. We have seen that Putin’s ambitions are not just about Ukraine; they are about creating a greater Russia. That threat is of course very severe in Ukraine but it is not limited to Ukraine. As well as bolstering Ukraine and its defences, we want to help countries such as Moldova as well.

Tim Farron: The Foreign Secretary made an excellent point earlier about food security. There is a prospect of this evil invasion of Ukraine impacting on the global humanitarian situation and also affecting us domestically when it comes to food supply. Would she consider two urgent actions in that case? Is now not the right time to restore the amount of aid we give to 0.7% of GDP? Is it not also right to halt the foolish progressive reduction in the basic payment scheme for our farmers, so that we can maintain our ability to feed ourselves?

Elizabeth Truss: There are many things we can do to improve food supply. I am certainly seeing what we can do through our aid budget, and we are looking at our aid strategy at the moment. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a real issue. It is recognised by our friends globally as a real issue and we are working on it together, but we also need to look at what we can do to support countries in areas such as trade. Increasing trade with like-minded countries is another way of making sure that food supplies are able to flow, and that is something we are also looking at.

Matt Western: I want to place on record my thanks to the people of Warwick and Leamington for their phenomenal response to this crisis, and in particular to members of the Polish community and to Dawid Kozlowski, who has set up a warehouse one and a half times the size of this Chamber for all the contributions that have been received. Can I ask the Secretary of State to elaborate on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about humanitarian aid going from the UK not just into Ukraine but into neighbouring countries, and on how that is being channelled?

Elizabeth Truss: Humanitarian aid is going directly into Ukraine—some of it is being delivered by the UN agency and by international Red Cross, and some by the Ukrainian Government themselves. In terms of the aid that is supporting in neighbouring countries, we are working through the UN but we are also working directly with the Government of Poland and other neighbouring Governments who have an effective system to be able to deliver that aid. So a lot of the aid we are putting in is going to those Governments so that they can distribute it. We are also acting as a deliverer of logistics for third-party Governments. For example, the Australians have contributed donations and we are doing the logistics to get that Australian aid into the neighbouring nations and also directly into Ukraine.

Liz Saville-Roberts: My constituent Gareth Roberts is currently in Prague with his Ukrainian wife Nataliia and her daughter and granddaughter, awaiting news of their family visa application. Like many others caught up in this Kafkaesque dystopia of excessive bureaucracy and insufficient capacity, they are beginning to run out of funds. Granddaughter Albina has scoliosis, which means she has to wear a brace for 23 hours every day. Comfortable accommodation is not a luxury for them; it is a necessity—so much so that the family are contemplating applying for refugee status in the Czech Republic. I trust that the Minister speaks regularly to her Home Office colleagues, so can she confirm that people who are forced to apply for refugee status in other countries due to slow UK bureaucracy will not then be made ineligible for family visas here in the UK?

Elizabeth Truss: I will take up the right hon. Lady’s case urgently with the Home Office to get it resolved as soon as possible.

Diana R. Johnson: Like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am concerned about the mass movement of women and children from Ukraine opening up opportunities for human trafficking and particularly sex trafficking. At the weekend, it was reported that, according to a number of charities, the Homes for Ukraine scheme risks operating as Tinder for sex traffickers. What does the Foreign Secretary have to say about that?

Elizabeth Truss: Criminal justice checks are done on all those participating in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to ensure that there is proper safeguarding. I agree with the right hon. Lady about the very concerning issue of human trafficking at the border. We have more than  300 staff in the region working with the international agencies to prevent that from happening, but she is right to say that it is a real risk, and we take it extremely seriously.

Wendy Chamberlain: Communities across the UK, such as Newport in my constituency, which is twinned with Zolotarevo in Ukraine, have offered accommodation to Ukrainian refugees. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), the Foreign Secretary said that there were some transport options for Ukrainian refugees coming to the UK, but can she advise whether additional financial support will be available, and whether Disasters Emergency Committee resources might be used for that?

Elizabeth Truss: I can tell the hon. Lady that this support is being put through the UNHCR and the Governments in countries such as Poland with whom we are working closely. There is direct financial support being provided, but also Wizz Air has opened free flights from Warsaw to the UK and, as I have said, Eurostar is offering similar support. There are a number of routes people can use. The key point is that when those refugees cross the border into Poland they are provided with that information by the Polish Government so that they can access those resources.

Andrew Gwynne: I pay tribute to the Ukrainian armed forces, to the resistance fighters and to ordinary citizens for the fortitude they have shown in the face of Russian aggression. It is a human reaction: I cannot help feeling that there is more that we can and should be doing to help them at this time. The Foreign Secretary will have seen media reports that Russia’s plan B is to carve the country into two distinct territorial units politically. In her statement, she said:
“We will work to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
I agree with her, but what does she mean by this?

Elizabeth Truss: First, any media reports about what the Russians are planning to do should not be taken at face value. What we know is that Putin is not succeeding in his plan, that he is desperate and that he could go to any measures. I think we need to be clear about that. I agree with what President Zelensky has said, which is that he wants to see the entirety of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty restored, and that is what we are supporting him to do.

Jonathan Edwards: The UN’s World Food Programme is warning that the war is creating a shockwave through the international food markets, further inflating prices and disrupting supply, which will lead to dire consequences for global hunger. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that supporting international efforts to alleviate suffering in famine-ravaged countries is a priority for the British Government?

Elizabeth Truss: It is very much a priority. We are working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with our international counterparts to address that crucial issue.

Bill Esterson: The Foreign Secretary gave us the figure for the number of Ukrainian refugees who have been approved to come to the UK, but she did not give us the figure for the number of refugees who have arrived here. Is that because she does not know that figure? Perhaps she can tell us why she is giving us one figure but not the other. Is not the logic of what she said about the need for changes to the Homes for Ukraine scheme that the Government should introduce a humanitarian visa so that people can come here without all the bureaucracy and the difficulties we have heard about from hon. Members this afternoon?

Elizabeth Truss: The number I quoted is a Home Office number, and I am happy to ask the Home Office to give the hon. Gentleman further details.

Jill Mortimer: My right hon. Friend says she thinks President Putin is increasingly desperate and could try anything. In that case, how much credibility does she attach to the possibility that he could stage an attack against his own people to garner further domestic support for his invasion of Ukraine?

Elizabeth Truss: I am afraid to say that what we have seen from President Putin is an attempt to create all kinds of false flag operations. The UK has been working with the United States to highlight the intelligence we have that demonstrates his playbook. We did that for his claims of a chemical weapon attack, and we have done it for his attempt to establish a puppet regime. We will continue to call out his appalling activities.

Gavin Newlands: I think the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the economic and jobs advantages of our lethal aid to Ukraine were, I am sure unintentionally, a little crass and insensitive. She may want to reflect and clarify those remarks after looking at Hansard.
People in my constituency and across the country with connections to Ukrainians who are applying for refuge in this country are being met with absurd bureaucratic delays. What changes are now being made? Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), why did the Chancellor not award the Home Office any further funding to do more and to do it quicker?

Elizabeth Truss: What I said about the weapons we are supplying is that we have a good defence industry in the United Kingdom and that the people of Northern Ireland are proud that their products are being used to help defend freedom and democracy.

Rupa Huq: Can the Foreign Secretary shed light on reports that civil servants working on Afghan resettlement are now being redeployed to Ukraine issues? Can she reassure us that, while we still have ongoing moral obligations and casework in Afghanistan, there is bandwidth for both?
My constituent Jibran Masud got out of Ukraine, and he was due to sit finals at Dnipro Medical Institute in May. Will the Foreign Secretary find something equivalent for him and the apparently dozens like him so that they can do their finals here and benefit our NHS as doctors? They are all British nationals.

Elizabeth Truss: I will see what I can do about the medical students. It was a major focus of our initial evacuation to make sure we successfully helped them to leave Ukraine in these very difficult circumstances.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the statement and commend the Foreign Secretary for her strong leadership. This morning my constituent, a humanitarian doctor on the border of Ukraine, told me she is struggling after seeing children horrifically scarred with third-degree burns. Those children face an uncertain and very painful future, as they need plastic surgery and other interventions. I assured this young doctor and her family that I will be praying for her, but what more will we do to provide specific medical support for those children and, importantly, to provide the vital support that is needed to stop the bombings that are causing this devastation?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman is right that these devasting injuries are being caused by President Putin’s appalling aggressive actions in Ukraine. We are helping people with medical emergencies, and we are flying people into the United Kingdom for treatment for some of these horrific injuries.

Points of Order

Chris Clarkson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. By convention, when a Member campaigns in another Member’s seat it is considered courteous to notify that Member in advance. I am aware that the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whom I notified in advance of this point of order, was campaigning in my seat on Saturday, but of course no such courtesy was extended. Although this is far from the most egregious discourtesy she has paid me in this place, may I ask for your guidance on what can be done to make sure that senior Members, in particular, observe basic courtesy when dealing with other Members?

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order and for notifying the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) of his intention to raise it. I can only reiterate that, as “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” makes clear, Members
“should notify colleagues whenever…you intend to visit a colleague’s constituency (except on purely private visits). All reasonable efforts should be taken to notify the other Member, and failing to do so is regarded…as very discourteous.”
I hope that clarifies the matter.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my question on how many people have come into the UK from Ukraine compared with the 13,500 going into the Republic of Ireland, a nation one twelfth the size of the UK, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the figure of 20,000. However, it was reported this morning that only 1,000 of the 25,000 completed applications have so far been approved. It has also been reported that 21,600 visas have been granted. My question was on how many people have come in, and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked the same. The Government seem unable to answer, so will they make a statement or answer an urgent question tomorrow to clarify the matter so that we know exactly what is happening?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman knows that is not a point of order for the Chair. He has made his point clear, and I am sure those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said. If any clarification is necessary, I expect it will be forthcoming.

Skills and post-16 education bill [lords]: Programme (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15 November 2021 (Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Message
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 2 hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Skills and Post-16 Education  Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 7 - Additional powers to approve technical education qualifications

Alex Burghart: I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 15B proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by its amendment 15.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the Government motion that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 17B and 17C.

Alex Burghart: I am delighted to be back in the House to discuss our landmark Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I am pleased the Bill has progressed to this point, as it is a real opportunity for us to create a chance for more people to develop the skills they need to move into a job and support our economy. We have made the case that this Bill and the work surrounding it will provide qualifications that have been designed with employers to give students the skills that the economy needs. That will help us to boost productivity and level up our country.
Lords amendment 17B is a Government amendment on provider encounters. I am delighted that we were able to make this amendment, thanks to the tireless work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Select Committee on Education. His successful campaigning on this issue, and on further education and skills more broadly, is testament to his expertise, his persuasive powers and his dedication to his constituents, who will be well served by this Bill.
This amendment represents a compromise that will require schools to put on six provider encounters for pupils in years 8 to 13—two in each key stage. This should help to ensure that young people meet a greater breadth of providers and, crucially, it should prevent schools from simply arranging one provider meeting and turning down all other providers.
The underpinning statutory guidance will include details of the full range of providers that we expect all pupils to have the opportunity to meet during their time at secondary school. The Government intend to consult on this statutory guidance to ensure that the legislation works for schools, providers and, most importantly, young people.

Jim Shannon: I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Does he agree that defunding BTECs poses tangible risks to disadvantaged students and that Lords amendment 17, which ensures that the earliest qualifications can be defunded will now be 2025, gives the necessary time for a good evaluation of T-levels and how they work in this new landscape of qualifications? We should support our colleges to allow every child to achieve their potential.

Alex Burghart: I am always anxious to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I believe his comment is a reference to amendment 15B, which I am coming to in a moment, but I hope he will forgive me if I finish talking about 17B first.
I hope this House will agree that we have reached a sensible compromise position, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee. This middle ground of six provider encounters will help to give every pupil information about what further education colleges, independent training providers, university technical colleges and other alternative providers can offer.
Turning to Lords amendment 15B on the roll-out of our technical education qualification reforms, I begin by reiterating the announcement made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading. We are allowing an extra year before public funding approval is withdrawn from qualifications that overlap with T-levels and before reformed qualifications are introduced that will sit alongside T-levels and A-levels.
Our reform programme is rightly ambitious, but we understand that it would be wrong to push too hard and risk compromising quality. The additional year strikes the right balance, giving providers, awarding organisations, students and other stakeholders enough time to prepare while moving forward with these important reforms. That is why we cannot accept the three-year delay that the amendment proposes.
These changes are part of reforms to our technical education system that have been over a decade in the making; they have their origins in the Wolf review of 2011 and were taken further by the Sainsbury review in 2016. Both those crucial pieces of work showed that we must close the gap between what people study and the skills employers need. As Lord Sainsbury said:
“Whatever their background, individuals need access to a national system of technical qualifications which is easy-to-understand, has credibility with employers and remains stable over time.”
T-levels will deliver on that pledge. They are a critical step change in the quality of the technical offer. They have been co-designed with more than 250 leading employers and are based on the best international examples of technical education. We have already put in place significant investment and support to help providers and employers to prepare for T-levels. By September 2023, all T-levels will be available to many thousands of young people across the country. The change to our reform timetable means that all schools and colleges will now be able to teach T-levels for at least a year before overlapping qualifications have their funding removed.
Last November, the Secretary of State also announced the removal of the English and maths exit requirement for T-levels. That is about making the landscape fairer so that talented students with more diverse strengths are not prevented from accessing this important offer. The change brings T-levels into line with other level 3 study—notably A-levels, which do not have such an English and maths exit requirement.
In addition, this amendment given to us by noble Lords would require consultation and consent from employer representative bodies before withdrawing funding approval from qualifications. As hon. Members will be aware, we have twice consulted on our intention to withdraw funding from qualifications that overlap with  T-levels. T-levels were designed with employers to give young people the skills that they need to progress into skilled employment, the skills that employers need and the skills that our economy needs.

Toby Perkins: The Minister refers to the consultation that the Government did on the defunding of BTECs and the twin-track approach. Am I right in saying that 86% of respondents to the Government’s own consultation said that the Government should keep the twin-track approach? If so, why is the Minister highlighting that consultation, which has come back to him telling him that the approach he is taking is wrong, as a reason not to vote for the amendment the Lords have proposed here?

Alex Burghart: Our consultation showed that there was widespread support for having a system of technical qualifications that offered both co-design with employers and entrenched, embedded work experience. The choice before Parliament in debating this Bill is whether we wish to push ahead, following the best international examples, on technical qualifications that are designed with employers and give students the best work experience opportunities as part of that qualification. That is the choice. We on the Government side know where we stand. We wish to have gold-standard qualifications that rank among the best in the world. I am afraid the Opposition do not seem to wish to follow us on that journey.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will continue to involve employers actively when making decisions about qualification approval, including through its route panels. Those panels hold national sector expertise and expert knowledge of occupational standards that have portability across employers. Institute approval will be a mark of quality and currency with business and industry, and will ensure that both employers and employees have the knowledge, skills and behaviours they need. The requirement for a public consultation and consent from employer representative bodies would duplicate existing good practice and introduce an unnecessary burden.
We have listened to the views expressed in the House and acted upon them. The Secretary of State’s policy announcements of significant changes acknowledge and satisfy the aims of the amendments. To push the amendments would risk the whole reform programme and risk letting down a generation of learners. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment from the other place.
I am very pleased that we are starting to make real progress with this legislation. Through our change to provider access legislation, I believe we have made this Bill better, but now is the time to crack on with delivering our important skills reforms.

Toby Perkins: Last week’s spring statement showed that this Government have a Chancellor ill-equipped to tackle the size of the cost of living challenge in front of him. This week, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill shows that, when it comes to addressing the key skills challenges our growth-starved nation faces, we have a Government ill-equipped for that challenge too.
We should remember that in the Chancellor’s statement last week he referred to reviewing the apprenticeship levy and other taxes, and by Friday he was forced to deny that there would be any formal review of the levy or the system at all. What a mess. This is a Government who spend the back-end of the week denying what they said in the first part of it. No wonder the sector is utterly disillusioned with their approach.
Let us stop for a minute and think how it could have been. A skills Bill worthy of the name would have seized the challenge posed by the huge reduction in apprenticeships since the introduction of the levy and demanded a review that ensured that small businesses were better served and that more level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship opportunities were created, and sought to return at least to the numbers we had before the levy was introduced.
A transformative skills Bill would also have ensured that all the relevant bodies were around the table directing local skills funding. It would also have recognised that, if universal credit is really going to be a bridge from the dole to a rewarding career, people on universal credit must be able to afford to invest in themselves in the way that the excellent Lords amendment suggested.
One can only imagine what their noble Lordships made of the Commons consideration of their amendments. A range of peers from across the political spectrum had brought their considerable knowledge and experience to bear to strengthen this “act of educational vandalism”, as Lord Baker described it, and voted through a series of amendments that a wide variety of knowledgeable judges, including groups such as the Association of Colleges, had described as strengthening the Bill.
Yet, one by one, the Government rejected those amendments, meaning that they have failed to grasp the huge opportunity, presented by the first skills Bill in their 12-year period in office, to put England’s approach to skills on a comparable footing with the best systems around the world. Their noble lordships reluctantly agreed to place just two further amendments in front of us today.
On amendment 15B, when this Bill was first debated nine months ago we had the then Secretary of State and the skills Minister in dismissive mood, decrying BTECs for all they were worth. Since then, we have had the more ameliorative approach, which we welcome, of the current Secretary of State first offering an extension to funding for BTECs into the next Parliament, then saying that the Government would conduct a qualifications review and tell us which level 3 qualifications they consider not of sufficient quality or duplicating T-levels.
All the while, however, the suspicion remains—reinforced by the Minister’s speech a moment ago—that the Government believe that only by discrediting or defunding BTECs will T-levels flourish. I am confused about why they so lack confidence in this new qualification. As my great friend Lord Blunkett said when moving amendment 15B last week, the Opposition have no hostility towards T-levels; indeed, we believe they are of real value. Just two weeks ago, I was at Barnsley College—a fine institution where I met several good T-level students studying construction, digital production, and health and care. They were hugely impressive, as were the lecturers and the leadership team, and had a real vision for where they might go following this qualification. I have no problem with saying that I have seen good quality T-level provision.
Nor should the Government refuse to recognise that BTECs, CACHE diplomas and other level 3 qualifications have also been transformational for so many students, and they should proceed cautiously before abolishing them. If the qualification, in its current form or in any future form, is a strong one, it will prosper, without the need to try and kill other level 3 qualifications and leave tens of thousands of students without a qualification to study. BTECs are widely respected by employers, learners, universities, colleges, training providers and other key stakeholders. When I asked the Minister about this earlier, he refused to answer, but the DFE’s own figures showed that 86% of respondents to its consultation urged it to continue the twin track of T-levels and BTECs. The Minister referred to Labour opposing T-levels. We are not opposing T-levels at all. In fact, it was the Conservative-dominated House of Lords, with the support of Conservative peers, that voted to place this amendment back before us last week.
The Government have optimistically suggested that 100,000 students might be doing T-levels by 2024.  Given that 230,000 students currently study for level-3 qualifications, the Government need to come clean, when their review is published, about their plan for those who do not move on to do T-levels. It really is not good enough to continue dodging this question. Institutions need to know, learners need to know, and employers need to know. Do the Government expect that more students will complete level 2 and then go into the world of work at the age of 17? Do they expect that anything like the missing 130,000 would stay on alternative level 3 courses? If not, what is the plan? The Government need to come clean.
On amendments 17B and 17C, while Labour Members would have preferred that the Baker clause was adopted in its entirety, we are prepared to accept this compromise as a way to move the issue forward. It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about that compromise. I still fail to see what it was about having more than one intervention in a single school year that the Government thought so radical an idea. Why is two in every two years considered the very most that we can expect of our schools? Notwithstanding that, given that at least 50% of pupils do not progress on to an academic route, children and young people should have as much support as possible to learn about the wide range of opportunities open to them. It is welcome that the two interactions must be separate and different from each other. I would like to impress upon the Minister that these interactions must be of high quality and must be impartial.
The Government need to acknowledge that the perspective on the current operation of the Baker clause differs considerably depending on whether you are a student or a provider. All too often, apprentices I have met have told me that they were not made aware of apprenticeships while at school. Just a few weeks ago, I was at the Remit Training automotive apprenticeship academy, where just five of the 25 students I met said that apprenticeships had been discussed at school and that they had received proper careers guidance. I suspect that if we spoke to their school, we would have heard a different tale. Ensuring that these interactions are done in a meaningful way that really opens schoolchildren’s horizons is so important.
While it remains a regret that more of the Lords’ excellent amendments were rejected by this House, it is our intention to support their lordships’ two remaining  amendments before us tonight. Beyond that, we give notice that as this Government have clearly run out of the ideas required to address the skills shortage they have created, a future Labour Government will tackle the systemic failure that has seen this country fail too many students and leaves England’s employers consistently complaining that under this Government too few young people leave our schools ready to work. It will take a Labour Government to drive the partnership and collaboration required to bring Government, employers, metro Mayors, local authorities and others together to reform what is not working and develop a skills ecosystem fit for purpose that delivers the work-ready students our employers demand, and our economy, and our country, so desperately need.

Robert Halfon: I am pleased to be called to speak today, and glad that this Bill is reaching almost the end of its yellow brick road. Sometimes the Government are like the Tin Man and need a bit of oil in them. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the skills Minister and the Minister for Higher and Further Education, as well as the previous skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who first set the wheels in motion for this legislation.
I have always passionately believed in the need to build an apprenticeships and skills nation. I disagree with the Opposition in that I think that the Bill is fundamentally important. The lifetime skills guarantee and the lifelong learning entitlement will transform lives for the better. It is backed by real funding of an extra £3 billion announced in the autumn Budget. That will do a lot to reverse the decades of neglect and snobbery that have often surrounded the FE sector. Culture change must start at the top. I am genuinely proud of the way that the Government have met the challenge of skills. We will always need more to be done, but this is a fundamental Bill and it should be recognised as such. While I absolutely want to make sure that the core BTECs are kept until the T-levels are rolled out, I would certainly not want a delay in T-levels. If anything, I would be happy for the Minister to introduce them even faster than their planned roll-out.
Culture change must also come from the bottom up. One of the biggest obstacles to students undertaking more skills-based courses is the fact that schools do not encourage students to do apprenticeships or vocational learning in the same way that they encourage progression to university. As I mentioned in relation to amendments that came to the House a few weeks ago, my maiden speech in 2010 was on this very subject, so the Minister will understand why I care about it. Sadly, not a lot has changed since 2010 in terms of encouraging students to do apprenticeships. Many teachers have themselves qualified by going to university, so their familiarity with this pathway has helped to foster the age-old mantra of “university, university, university”. I would like the Government to allow us to have not just postgraduate teachers but teachers who have qualified through a degree apprenticeship. We have policing and nursing apprenticeships, so why not teaching apprenticeships and undergraduates at higher apprentice level?
The way the inspection framework has been framed and the nature of A-levels being seen as more academic has also contributed to the focus on university as the  gold-plated standard. I hope that the roll-out of T-levels will help to ensure that the same procedures apply to technical education and then divide between academic and vocational learning. Personally speaking, I would be delighted if students could mix their alphabet of learning and take A-levels and T-levels together, which would essentially establish an international baccalaureate-style system of the kind that has benefited so many pupils from countries around the world.
However, the most critical thing we can do is improve careers guidance in schools. I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will have tinnitus from the amount of times that I have gone on about this, but it is fundamental. The more encounters that pupils have with further education providers, technical colleges and university technical colleges, the more likely we can demonstrate that there is another, and arguably better, path forward. On one occasion, when I was lucky enough to have the role of skills Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) performs with such distinction, I went to visit an exhibition in Birmingham—a skills show—and met a father and daughter who were in the process of deciding whether she should go to university. I showed them what was on offer—the high-quality skills courses and the jobs as well. By the time we had finished, the father and the daughter had absolutely decided that she would go and do a higher apprenticeship. I thought to myself, “I’ve converted one person to do this and I hope we convert many millions more of our young people.” That is why these encounters are so important—because without that skills show, that father and daughter would probably have just taken the traditional academic route of her going to university.
Last time I spoke on this Bill, I was addressing my new clause 3, which would have provided for three careers guidance encounters per pupil in each key year group. The Secretary of State said that while he was unable to make an announcement at that time, he would consider it further and move in due course and, as is so often the case with him and his Ministers, they have kept their commitment and their word, which is hugely appreciated. I am delighted to speak in support of Government amendments 17B and 17C, which allow for two careers guidance meetings per pupil per key year group, making a total of six such meetings, which is double what is on offer today. That goes to show that if the Secretary of State says he will do something, it will happen.
Colleagues across the House will remember that I tabled three amendments to the Bill: one was to create apprenticeship routes for prisoners, one was to increase the number of careers guidance meetings for students, and one was to consider providing funding to support level 2 qualifications for adults who demonstrated an intent to progress to level 3 under the lifelong learning entitlement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will not mind if I take a leaf out of Meat Loaf’s book, as he said:
“Now don’t be sad, don’t be sad, ’cause two out of three ain’t bad”.
That applies to two of the three encounters as well. The Government accepted two of my amendments—the one on prison apprenticeships in particular—and I greatly respect Ministers for listening and working with me and colleagues to reach these agreements.
A few months ago, I was honoured to be invited back to Exeter University—my old university—to make a speech and present its first cohort of degree apprenticeship students with their degrees. I remember sitting in that same hall as a university graduate in 1991, and I looked out at so many apprentices from all walks of life who were proud of the work that they had achieved. If a traditional academic university such as Exeter—one of the best in the world—can do so much to change its culture and promote degree apprenticeships, things must really be changing in our country. I hope that the passing of this excellent Bill will see many more schools and universities embrace vocational education pathways, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to do more to banish once and for all the snobbery and misunderstanding that has surrounded apprenticeships, skills and technical education and to create a broader curriculum that supports vocational learning to better prepare pupils and students for the world of work.

Chris Skidmore: I reiterate the general remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about how the Bill is welcome overall. I will support the Government in their motions to disagree with the Lords amendments, and I agree that it is important that the Bill sees its final passage so that we can get on with the important journey towards an integrated education system. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the Lifelong Education Commission, which I set up with ResPublica to look at the long-term structural issues underpinning why the United Kingdom, and England in particular, has had such a difficult, long tail of underachievement and the need, as we look at the Government’s mission to level up for the future, to place skills provision front and centre of the agenda.
About six million people—the figure hovers around that number—still have only qualifications at level 2, and there is a desperate need to give more people an opportunity to enhance their qualifications so that they can apply for the many jobs and vacancies out there. People are not refusing to do those jobs. It is partly that they do not have the skills and capabilities to engage with the process, but they are desperate to do so, and that it is why it is so vital to match their skills with their ambitions.
The Bill begins the long process of moving from a top-heavy system that focused unduly on universities and did not give the further education sector the opportunity and investment that it needed to progress. Hopefully, we will now focus on tertiary education overall instead of pitching HE against FE. However, the Bill must be just chapter one of that educational revolution. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned, the Bill goes only so far, and a number of caveats have yet to be addressed, particularly on financing. I am particularly interested in financing for lifelong education, as such learners are not 18-year-olds who can access loan finance—and, even if they could, they have families, and they have mortgages and other debts to pay, so simply saying, “You can apply for an additional loan” will not work. We need to look at grant financing and understand the pressures placed on individuals and the barriers that they will need to overcome to access lifelong learning.
I tabled nine amendments the other month, none of which was accepted by the Government; nor, sadly, were they taken up by the Lords. I will continue to press  the Government on skills provision, the lifelong loan entitlement and the lifetime skills guarantee, which applies only to a small proportion of the overall population. I wish it could be expanded, and I hope that the Government recognise that that ambition should be realised, particularly for individuals who have received qualifications at levels 3 to 5—or even levels 6 or 7— and need to retrain. They may have taken a degree 20 years ago, but they cannot access the opportunities to do that retraining.
The opportunities for lifelong learning and skills provision need to be more inclusive in the future. At the moment, the Bill addresses only a small segment of society—it is a segment that must be addressed and tackled—but let us look at chapters two, three and four and begin the journey of levelling up for everyone in this country, not just the immediate priority on which we are focused today.

Alex Burghart: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who both have great expertise in the field. On what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, we are interested in building up the offer for people already in the workplace. We see a great many people taking apprenticeships to reboot their careers. The Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee is offering people who did not get level 3 technical qualifications at school or college the chance to do so later in life. Of course, we also have the LLE, which is championed by the Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan).
We are about giving everyone, whatever stage they are at in life, the chance to step forward and build their careers with new opportunities. The Bill is central to that. I have heard the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) criticise the Bill at various stages for not mentioning apprenticeships. They are obviously extraordinarily important to what we are doing, and I am delighted to report that, in the first quarter of the academic year, 164,000 people started apprenticeships, which is up 34% from last year and—crucially—up 6% from the pre-pandemic period. He often likes to quote figures of yesteryear, and I must remind him—not for the first time—that the change in the number of starts was not down to the creation of the apprenticeship levy but because, in 2017, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in a more junior job in the Department for Education, he started to reform apprenticeships to ensure that our 640 standards reflected the needs of employers. That golden thread has run through all our reforms over the past 10 years, building from the report written by Baroness Wolf in 2011 through to the Sainsbury review in 2016.
To hear those on the Opposition Benches say, “Slow down, you’re going too fast” is somewhat reminiscent of the Locomotive Act 1865, which recommended that the speed limit in town should be 2 mph and that somebody with a red flag should walk ahead of the vehicle as it made its progress. We have waited long enough and students have waited long enough for high-quality technical qualifications that are designed with employers to give the economy the skills that it needs and to give students the skills they need to prosper in that economy.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield also referred to the number of people on BTEC courses and the number of people expected to do T-levels. I remind him again that we are not in the process of defunding all BTECs: BTECs will survive where they do not overlap with T-levels. Just as now, there will be some people who do not study level 3 at age 16 to 19, and those people will have an enhanced offer at level 2, off the back of our level 2 reforms that are currently out to consultation.
I was delighted that at the beginning of last week 69 T-level providers from throughout the country—from north to south and east to west—came to the Department for Education and talked to us about their experiences in the first two years. A great many students came with them, and the level of enthusiasm for the qualifications and the level of excitement about the opportunities that the reforms are going to provide for the next generation was tangible. It therefore gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House and sit down.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 152.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 15B disagreed to.
Lords amendments 17B and 17C agreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 15B;
That Alex Burghart, Michael Tomlinson, Sara Britcliffe, David Johnston, Mary Glindon, Mr Toby Perkins and Matt Western be members of the Committee;
That Alex Burghart be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reason to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and  Courts Bill

Consideration of Lords message
[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order), HC 331; Fifth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order): Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report, HC 724.]

After Clause 49 - Application of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to National Food Crime Unit of Food Standards Agency

Kit Malthouse: I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 58 but proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government motion that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 72B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Amendment (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 72B.
Government motion that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73, insists on its amendment 74A to Lords amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 74B to that amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87, insists on its amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73 and additional amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87.
Government motion that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 80, insists on its amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E and 80F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with that amendment, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 80G instead of the words left out by that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 80.

Kit Malthouse: Our position on Lords amendment 58 has always been that we accept the case in principle that the Food Standards Agency should have direct access to relevant police powers to enable it to tackle food crime, but that such powers should be accompanied by appropriate accountability mechanisms, including in relation to the investigation of complaints. Lords amendment 58 was inadequate to the task, but as the disagreement between the two Houses was not one of principle, we have now brought forward amendments 58C to 58E in lieu, which seek to put a comprehensive legislative framework in place.
The amendments do four things. First, they allow the regulations to be made, conferring relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers on the Food Standards Agency; we are principally concerned here with search and seizure powers. Secondly, they will enable regulations to apply provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 relating to drawing inferences from a suspect’s failure to account for their presence at a particular place. Thirdly, the amendments create an offence of obstructing a food crime officer in the execution of the functions conferred on them under new section 114C of PACE. Fourthly, they amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to bring the National Food Crime Unit within the remit of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I trust that the amendments will be welcomed by both sides of the House, notwithstanding the unfortunate way they were made in the other place.
I move on to Lords amendment 72B. I am pleased that the other place has seen reason in abandoning plans to make misogyny a hate crime, given that the Law Commission identified risks that the plans could generally prove counterproductive for women and girls. The Lords have, nevertheless, tabled an alternative. It would still mandate the police recording of crimes that effectively amount to hostility on grounds of sex or gender, although, perhaps recognising the Law Commission’s warnings, it does so without any attendant powers to recognise such crimes in court. The amendment would also introduce a new stand-alone offence related to harassment or intimidation that is aggravated by hostility towards sex or gender.
On matters of police recording, I assure Members that the issue requires no legislation. During the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government committed to asking the police to collect such data and they are still in discussions with forces to take that forward. I acknowledge that the other place thinks that the commitment is moving too slowly. My noble Friend, Baroness Williams of Trafford, was completely frank that we ought to accelerate our efforts; I share that sentiment.
However, judging from the debate in the other place, the purpose of the amendment appears to be based on the premise that any delay is explained by police foot dragging; as such, legislation would serve to turn up the heat on reticent forces. That is not a fair characterisation. We need to move more quickly, but the remaining teething issues are of an entirely technical nature, as we decide on the best approach and reconcile a number of different approaches by those forces already recording that kind of data. Wielding a bigger stick through legislation may confer a frisson of virtue, but unfortunately it misdiagnoses the problem. It is also particularly important that we take extra care over the design of our approach in light of the Law Commission’s finding on existing local police recording efforts. Quoting an independent review, it noted that the experience in Nottinghamshire has
“not been associated with increased reporting”.
We want to understand why and then improve on that outcome. What we simply need to do now is resolve a number of points of implementation with forces. We are committed to moving more rapidly in doing so.

Robert Buckland: I am listening with great care to my right hon. Friend’s remarks about reporting—a concern that, as he knows, I share, having been in office when we made that  undertaking, which I regard as very solemn. In order to help, I hope later to develop an argument about sentencing guidelines, but does my right hon. Friend agree that existing guidelines on intimidatory offences already refer to offences based on hostility in relation to sex, as opposed to a sexual motive? Would he with his officials look at the applicability of those guidelines to see whether that is already a hook on which the police can hang their monitoring and data collection task?

Kit Malthouse: As usual, my right hon. and learned Friend has made a helpful suggestion. We will certainly review as he suggests. It is worth bearing in mind what we are trying to achieve, which is twofold. First, we obviously want to encourage women and girls to come forward and report in a way that they believe will have impact. Secondly, we have to make sure that that impact happens—that there is a police response. As many hon. Members will know, modern policing is driven by data. It is important that the police see crime through the data that appears daily in their management dashboard and that they can therefore assign resources accordingly. I have often said to groups of citizens that reporting crime is a little like that interesting philosophical problem: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a crime occurs and no one reports it, how on earth are the police to know?
The reporting of crime is often a complex area, so marrying up the confidence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) is looking for in reporting, and making sure that that then translates into police action on the frontline, is the critical piece of work that we want to do as swiftly as possible.
I move on to the question of a stand-alone offence. The Law Commission’s review of hate crime laws did touch on this issue, while noting that it was not within its terms of reference. In doing so, it suggested that the Government should tread carefully, recommending that we explore the possible need for such an offence and ensure that, if one is required, it is proportionate and well defined. It also briefly echoed some of the Government’s own considerations about the need for further analysis, speaking to some of the complexities.
With that in mind, I am pleased that in the other place my noble Friend Baroness Williams committed to consulting publicly on the issue before the summer recess. That is entirely the right approach—ensuring that we are moving forward to elicit answers while taking account of the competing considerations at play. Again, short of rushing into legislation before we have the right answers, this part of the Lords amendment is also in my view rather redundant.
As I have said before, our desire to advance the cause of women’s and girls’ safety is extremely strong, but we have to ensure that our efforts are directed at the right solutions. The Government are already doing and have committed to doing a huge span of work in this space, and our mission is ongoing and urgent. To that end, the Government have tabled amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. These require us properly to consider the Law Commission’s carefully considered and expert-informed recommendation relating to making misogyny a hate crime and to establish a clear position on it. Through that, we are targeting attention to the right evidence-based solutions, the importance of which I have outlined.  Furthermore, we have gone further in committing to consulting publicly on a new public sexual harassment offence, which means that we will soon have a much clearer sense of how we should proceed. With those measures in mind, I invite the House to reject Lords amendment 72B and agree with the amendments in lieu.
Let me turn to the two public order issues that were returned to this House by their lordships. There has been much ill-informed comment about the powers to attach conditions to a protest related to the generation of noise. I will repeat what I said at the last session of ping-pong: these provisions do not ban noisy protests. There is no dispute that local authorities should have powers to deal with egregious noise—I speak as a local councillor and, when I was a resident of central London, as a frequent user of their services. Indeed, at the Opposition’s behest, we added provisions to the Bill that can be used to limit noisy and disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. Those continuing to support the Lords amendments—including, I assume, Labour Members—are saying that protesters may make any amount of noise, at any location, at any time of the day or night, and for any length of time, perhaps over a period of days or weeks.
When faced with a prolonged protest in, for example, a residential or commercial area, where the level of noise is such as to amount to intimidation or harassment, or is causing alarm or distress, it is entirely reasonable that the police should be able to impose conditions, perhaps prohibiting the use of amplification equipment or drums between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. If not, we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where although the police cannot enforce something, the local authority can.

Jim Shannon: Obviously, Northern Ireland has a history and tradition of protesting, and it is about getting the right balance. I say honestly to the Minister that I, and probably other Opposition Members, would like Lords amendment 73 to be approved. If someone is preaching the Gospel, or if a single person or group of people are singing hymns on the streets of the United Kingdom, can the Minister reassure me that they will be able to continue and there will be no restrictions? We all know those services last no longer than about an hour—that is a fact. We are keen to ensure that the Government are not suppressing the right to religious freedom in the way it has been suppressed in the past.

Kit Malthouse: There is no desire or intention to suppress religious or other freedoms. This is about giving the police powers not to ban protest or assembly, but to place conditions on it. As I said in previous stages of the Bill, the job of this House in a democratic society is to balance competing rights. There is no doubt that, as is accepted at the European Court of Human Rights and across the liberal world, the right to protest is not unqualified. Someone cannot protest in such a way that it unreasonably impinges on my right to go about my business as a non-protester. Where noise is concerned, we are seeking to give the police powers to strike that balance where appropriate.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Can I take this point just a little further? This is about an interpretation not only of how loudly something is being said, but of what is being said. Is the Minister saying that the Bill  would allow a police officer to make a judgment that he does not like the particular verse of scripture or quote that is being used, and could therefore stop it being said? That breaches the European convention on human rights in a number of areas.

Kit Malthouse: The amendments have no bearing on the content of the noise, merely on the impact the noise is having on people nearby from a decibel or distress point of view. Other legislation governs content, particularly if it promotes hatred or incites violence, although as I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, that will not necessarily be true in this case. The amendments are agnostic as to content.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I must press the Minister further. We surely live in a society that allows difficult things to be said. Unfortunately, the Bill is going down a road—it is considerably un-Tory-like, I have to say—where difficult things will no longer be allowed to be said, or at least to be said loudly, proudly and boldly. That appears to be where the Bill is taking us.

Kit Malthouse: Not at all. Difficult things will and should still be said loudly, proudly and boldly, but it may be different in certain circumstances—for example, we have already conceded in the Bill that certain things should not necessarily be said consistently loudly, proudly and boldly outside a school. We have already conceded the power to control noisy protests outside a school, or indeed a vaccination centre. Why should those areas necessarily be privileged over others? This is about the distress and alarm caused by that noise, and its imposition on the rights of others. It is not necessarily about the content.

Richard Burgon: Only the other week, alongside RMT and Nautilus members I engaged in a very noisy protest outside the P&O and DP World headquarters in London. That protest was noisy, and I hope it was a nuisance to those working in P&O head office. People are very concerned that the Government have such a stubborn attitude to trying to retain provisions that could make the noise of that important protest against injustice unlawful.

Kit Malthouse: Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. At that protest, legitimate and right as it is, individuals are exercising their right to free speech. Imagine, for example, that next door to the P&O headquarters there was an old people’s home. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) laughs, but such circumstances do occur, and that is why we have local authority noise teams. There could have been a hospital next door to the P&O headquarters. If the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) had continued his noisy protest, and the shouting, screaming and flying of banners through the night for days on end, to the extent that occupation of that hospital became difficult, it would seem perfectly reasonable for the police to say, “Would you mind awfully not shouting and screaming between 10 o’clock at night and 7 in the morning?” In certain circumstances the police would have to form a judgment about that. An area might face prolonged and noisy protests that impinge  on the rights of others who are not necessarily even involved in the dispute or protest. In the face of changes and developments in amplification technology, we have a duty to seek to strike a balance between those competing rights.

Alistair Carmichael: The question of distress and alarm is an interesting one jurisprudentially. By what means does the Minister anticipate that it will be established in court? Does he see it as an objective or subjective test?

Kit Malthouse: If I could make some progress, I was going to come to that matter. There has been some concern about the definitions of particular phrases in the Bill, and we recognise that some of the terminology has caused concern. Many of the terms used, such as “alarm” and “distress”, are precedented and well understood by the police and courts, but we accept that the term “serious unease” is novel in legislation. To address those concerns, the Government amendments in lieu remove that as a trigger for the power to attach noise-related conditions to protests.

Stuart McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for taking so many interventions. By taking out the word “serious” as well as “unease”, there is a danger that we also take out “serious alarm” or “serious distress” and replace it with just “alarm” or “distress”. On one hand the Home Secretary is making a welcome concession on “serious unease” but she also appears to be watering down the trigger so that “alarm” and “distress” is enough.

Kit Malthouse: As I said, those terms are well understood by the police and courts. They are interpreted, and have been over many years in other circumstances, and we do not believe there is room for misinterpretation. This is about placing conditions and balancing rights. We hope and believe that in the small number of circumstances where it is appropriate for the police to apply conditions, just as for the tiny number of protests that currently attract conditions in this country, this is a proportionate, modest power for the Lords to put in place.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister is trying his best on this point, but he has to return to the fact that it is wholly subjective whether distress or alarm has been caused. We are conferring this power, but we are not providing strictures around it, or indicating what we believe to be appropriate or inappropriate. None of this will be settled until it is tested, tested and tested again, but bear in mind it will never be tested in the court until a protest has already been curtailed and the police have acted in using these powers without any parameters from us as legislators. That is not the road to go down, unless we very clearly and simply define what we mean and how we intend to curtail protest. Until the Government do that, they cannot have our support.

Kit Malthouse: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he is looking towards, if I may say so, a Napoleonic approach to the law which we do not have in this country. We set the parameters of powers for the police, which they interpret and which are then tested  through the courts. That has been done for public order legislation down the ages. As I say, it has been interpreted, quite rightly, over time by independent judges who oversee and seek to strike that balance. He is right that each circumstance where the police face a decision will be different and that we rely on the test through the court over time to find the right balance.
I urge Members who are expressing concern about this measure to consider, as many do, what it is like living in central London. Those who are residents of Westminster, where for many years I was a councillor, will know that Westminster City Council has a very good and very effective noise team. If their next door neighbour is having a disco or a party well into the night, night after night, they can seek a defence against that from their local authority.
In a small number of cases where legitimate protest impinges, because of its noise, decibel level, longevity or other matters, why should not local residents or businesses who are unable to continue, or whatever it might be, seek some kind of protection from the police? That seems perfectly reasonable to me and I cannot see why anyone objects, unless they believe that protesters should be allowed to make any amount of noise at any time anywhere outside any sort of premises. If they do not, we are just talking about matters of degree. The way we settle those matters of degree, as in other areas of police powers where we look at proportionality and reasonableness which are then interpreted by the courts, seems to me a fairly modest way of doing things.
On Lords amendment 80, I should say once again that both the national policing lead for public order and the policing inspectorate have said clearly that the distinction, drawn by the Public Order Act 1986 between public processions and public assemblies is anachronistic and no longer reflects the realities of policing protests. Provided the thresholds in the 1986 Act are met, the police should be able to attach any condition to an assembly in the same way they can already attach a condition to a procession.
As is its right, the revising Chamber, the unelected partially hereditary House, has asked this elected democratically accountable House to consider the amendments again. We have listened to the concerns raised and responded with further changes. It is now time for the views of those of us who took the trouble to get elected to prevail, so we can get on with implementing the many measures in the Bill that tackle violence against women and girls, ensure violent and sexual offenders get the punishment they deserve, and protect all our neighbourhoods.

Sarah Jones: I thank the Minister for his radical reformist speech. I had not realised he was in favour of such reform of the House of Lords.
There are three topics for debate today: the Food Standards Agency and tackling food crime; misogyny as a hate crime; and noisy protests. I can deal with the first relatively quickly. We welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 58 on increased investigatory powers for the National Food Crime Unit of the Food Standards Agency. I congratulate Lord Rooker and his colleagues on their doughty campaigning on this topic, and I congratulate the Government on listening to the argument and introducing additional amendments  to bring the National Food Crime Unit within the remit of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I understand that further legislation will bring the crime unit under the remit of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. We will therefore support the Government in their amendments in lieu tonight.
Moving on to misogyny, I am sorry that yet again we are in a position where the Government are blocking legislation that would provide better protection to women. Given the Government’s woeful record on violence against women and girls, with prosecutions at an all-time low for crimes such as rape and sexual assault, it seems to us that they should be doing far more, from making street harassment a crime or introducing rape and serious sexual offences in every force, to longer minimum sentences for rape and more support for victims. As Baroness Newlove said in the other place, making misogyny a hate crime is simply about ensuring
“that the law is on the side of women”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2022; Vol. 817, c. 1379.]
The Lords listened to the Government’s arguments that the Law Commission had concerns that making misogyny a hate crime might complicate the prosecution of rape and sexual assaults. They then came back with Lords amendment 72B, which narrows the scope of the proposals significantly. It makes it an offence to harass or intimidate a person based on hostility to their sex or gender. That negates all the concerns of the Law Commission. The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to pass regulations within six months requiring police forces to record data on offences which fall under this section or which the victim reports as being motivated by misogyny. These are relatively straightforward steps that will increase public awareness, improve victims’ confidence in reporting, and enhance the way the police respond to violence against women.
The Government have rejected those simple and progressive reforms. In their place, they have tabled an amendment giving the Government 12 months to respond to the Law Commission’s report. Surely that is a statement of the obvious, in that one would expect the Government to formally respond to the Law Commission. The Opposition do not understand why the Government would reject a law making it an offence to harass or intimidate a person based on hostility to their sex or gender. And we certainly do not understand why the Government still have not asked police forces to gather the data.
On that point, perhaps the Minister could help to clarify something for us. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill in March 2021, the Government committed to asking police forces “on an experimental basis” to record the data and said that they would shortly begin the consultation process with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. In the other place, Baroness Williams said:
“discussions with the police through the NPCC have been under way on this for some time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 790.]
However, in a freedom of information response this month to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the NPCC says:
“a formal request to record has never been received to date.”
Can the Minister clarify if the Government have—if so, when they did—or have not formally requested, through the NPCC, that that data should be recorded? My concern is that, while I understand some of the arguments  the Minister was making about the complexity of the data, some of the conversations have yet to actually begin.
We must be absolutely intolerant of misogyny in all its forms. The Government could choose to make that clear now by backing Lords amendment 72B. It is not a frisson of virtue, which is what the Minister described it as; it is a very clear and simple way to make sure the law works for women.
Turning to the third of the three issues we are debating this afternoon, the right to noisy protest, we stand at a significant moment in history following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We were all humbled and deeply moved by the presence of President Zelensky on our screens in this place, showing us his country’s bravery in the face of tyranny. Last week, President Zelensky called on people across the world to take to the streets in the name of peace:
“Come from your offices, your homes, your schools and universities, come in the name of peace, come with Ukrainian symbols to support Ukraine, to support freedom, to support life.”
We saw brave Ukrainians protesting where there were horrific reports of Russian troops opening fire on the crowd, and brave Russians protesting in their country in their thousands on the streets, and being arrested and detained for standing their ground. We saw tens of thousands of people on the streets in London this weekend supporting Ukraine. But here we are again debating amendments that could criminalise singing the Ukrainian national anthem. Under the provisions in this Bill, protesters could be criminalised—[Interruption.] The Minister is heckling from a seated position—

Kit Malthouse: You all heckled me from a seated position, so why can I not do the same?

Nigel Evans: Order.

Sarah Jones: Indeed the Minister can heckle me from a seated position, but it does not make him right. Under the provisions in this Bill, protesters could be criminalised if the police determine that they are too noisy. We have suggested amendments, and the Lords have done the same. Conservative Members have expressed significant disquiet at the timing of such a draconian intervention. Why on earth is the Home Secretary pushing ahead with plans to stop protests that make noise? The police have never asked for these provisions, and I doubt they would ever use them. The public did not ask for them, and Members from the Home Secretary’s own party did not call for them.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures give legitimacy to the secret police—or the open police—who are basically bundling up those in Moscow who protest against Putin’s brutal war? This is playing into the hands of Putin. Does she also agree that the proposals will effectively stop picketing as a legal and legitimate means of protest in trade disputes? It is despicable.

Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. At this significant historical moment when millions of people across the world are protesting against what is happening in Ukraine, we need, as mother of all Parliaments, to protect our right to protest.
The Minister said that we need to get the balance right, and of course that is true. There are laws already in place to manage protests to make sure they legitimately allow people to go about their business. We are talking tonight about protests being too noisy. [Interruption.] The Minister is heckling about the Labour amendments on harassment and intimidation outside schools and vaccination centres. That was about harassment and intimidation; it is not about noise.

Kit Malthouse: Yes, it is.

Sarah Jones: No, it is not.

Kit Malthouse: It is about noise. Read your own amendment.

Nigel Evans: Order. The Minister is being very noisy at the moment.

Sarah Jones: Perhaps the Minister wants to stand up and make another speech, but I will carry on. The Home Secretary is pushing amendments that the police do not want and did not ask for, and that the public do not want and did not ask for. Why are the Government so constantly out of step with public opinion?
Part 3 of the Bill targets protests for being too noisy. It provides a trigger for imposing conditions on public assemblies, public processions and one-person protests if a protest is too noisy. It includes vague terms such as “serious annoyance” or the subjective notion of being too noisy, which create a very low threshold for police-imposed conditions and essentially rule out entirely peaceful protests. Lord Coaker in the other place has read the Government’s definitions of “too noisy”. Double glazing is a threshold. If someone is organising a demonstration and they are going to be noisy, they need to find areas where buildings have double glazing. You could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker.
One person’s “too noisy” is another person’s “not loud enough”. Keeping these provisions on noise will invite all sorts of problems of interpretation for the police in trying to agree on what “too noisy” might mean. The Opposition want these provisions removed from the Bill. Lords amendment 73 removes the trigger on noise related to public processions; Lords amendment 87 removes the trigger on noise related to one-person protests; and we support the leave-out amendment 80 to remove the clause from the Bill altogether, as well as Lords amendment 80G, which accepts a definition of “serious disruption” being added to the Bill, but removes from it any mention of noise.
The Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have made one small concession on noise by removing the term “serious unease” from a range of conditions under which police can restrict protest. I am glad that the Government have partially admitted that the term should never have made it on to the statute book. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has said, and as Liberty and others have pointed out, however, the drafting has unintended consequences. Now the police will be able to impose conditions on protests that they believe may cause persons to suffer “alarm or distress”. There no need for it even to be “serious” alarm or distress. We have a better solution, and a way for the Government to fix this legislative mess. All they have to do is support our amendments.
In the MPs’ offices in 1 Parliament Street that look over Whitehall and Parliament Square, MPs—including me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary—and their staff work with near-constant background noise coming from protests, be it loud music, singing or speeches. Of course it is annoying, and it can be very distracting, but that is the point of protests—to capture our attention, because they have something to say. I urge Members across this House to ask themselves tonight why they would vote for legislation that could criminalise singing in the street.
At this late stage of the Bill’s journey, we are debating specific amendments. Members all know that voting against the Government’s public order amendment tonight does not mean voting against other measures in the Bill or stopping it from passing. The time for that has come and gone. It would simply mean that Members do not want to vote through measures that restrict peaceful protest based on noise. When Members walk through the voting Lobby this evening, I hope they have the voices of those protesting for Ukraine ringing in their ears.

Nigel Evans: Order. I ask those wishing to catch my eye to stand. There are about five. I am going to impose a five-minute limit—not everybody is going to get in—and I want to leave five minutes for the Minister to respond at the end. As Members know, Divisions will take place at five to eight.

Robert Buckland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do my best within a five-minute limit. Normally, I have only just cleared my throat after minute four, but I will strive within the constraints you have placed on me.
I rise to speak to the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 72B, regarding a response to the Law Commission. I welcome it, and I think it is sensible to set out a timetable on which the Government will respond to those recommendations. To cut to the quick, I make no bones about the fact that I think we need to improve the law on street harassment. The current deficiency in the law on harassment and stalking is that it requires a course of conduct. That will not cover a whole range of crimes that are committed against women, in particular, on the streets of our country every day. I had hoped that we would be able to deal with the matter in the Bill, but I am realistic and I understand the constraints under which the Government work.
Of course, I respect the Law Commission, which is an excellent body. When I was Lord Chancellor, I helped to make sure that its funding was put on a more even keel. Its work is of a very high standard and we should be proud of it. I, for one, will not therefore seek to overturn the proposal, even if I do not quite agree with the answer. Having said that, and with respect to the Law Commission, I do not think its recommendation about a sexually motivated offence is the right answer; I think that would be to narrow it too much. I would be looking for an offence that was wider in definition and covered a variety of behaviours. It might include specific statutory reference to misogyny as a motivation or demonstration based on sex or gender, but that could equally be dealt with in sentencing guidelines.
I say that because when I looked again at the sentencing guidelines for intimidatory offences, I saw the word “sex” included as one of the factors determining culpability. That is a departure from previous guidelines that I have worked with. This guideline came in back in 2018, and I was not immediately familiar with it because I moved on from the role of Law Officer shortly thereafter. I was struck by the fact that we already have that important word in guidelines that the court has to take into account in sentencing. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that matter in the round. It seems to me that because of those guidelines, police and prosecutors should already be working to gather evidence where there is a crime of intimidation, and where that aggravating factor may well be present.
I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister that I regarded the undertaking that we made during proceedings on the Domestic Abuse Bill as a solemn one. I am, frankly, disappointed and impatient that we have not made the progress we should have done on reporting and collating this information. We need to get on with that, because we need that body and wealth of information well before the commencement or bringing into force of any new offence that particularly affects women and girls. I see no reason for excuses or shilly-shallying around this issue. I note in particular the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) about that. She has tailored it particularly carefully around that reporting right. I am prepared to give my right hon. Friend one last chance on this, but I will not be going any further, because I think that now is the time for us to get on with this, frankly.
I note that in the other place, my name was taken and referred to as if I was the architect of the amendments. It is no false modesty on my part to say I really was not, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for the discussions we have had. She has always sought to be constructive. We are trying to find our way through this thicket to offer more protection for women and girls. Let us not beat around the bush: that is why we are all here and it is what we should be pressing the case upon. That is why our lordships rightly have asked us to think again.
I do not share my right hon. Friend the Minister’s cynicism about the Lords. They have an important role to play on issues such as this, where we have detail. Where I do have an issue is with the increasing practice in the other place of challenging the underlying philosophy of Bills, which I do not think is their role. On issues such as this, they have an important part to play. We have men and women there who speak with authority—certainly on this issue—and I am grateful to them for their careful consideration.
We are nearly there. We are now in the right area on harassment. I will be happy to give my right hon. Friend the leeway that he needs, but on reporting, the watchword has to be, “We need to get on with this, and soon.”

Nigel Evans: I call the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Scottish National party, Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: The SNP remains totally opposed to the dreadfully drafted and totally excessive  restrictions on protest contained in part 3 of the Bill, and we do so for all the many reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) has set out in previous stages, so I can be relatively brief.
The truth is that the Government know they have comprehensively lost the arguments on this, so they are left reassuring us that the powers will not actually be used and that noisy protest will not be banned altogether, and providing a hotchpotch of examples, many of which would already be caught by existing public order provisions. The Minister even made reference to discos. While I would love there to be a fundamental right to disco, or whatever the modern terminology is, that is not remotely comparable to a protest and the fundamental right to protest.
We just cannot legislate in this way. We cannot hand over draconian powers on the basis that Home Office Ministers reassure us that they or the police will use these powers exceptionally, rather than ubiquitously. Any restriction on fundamental rights must be carefully justified, carefully set out and carefully circumscribed, but the protest provisions in the Bill are as far from careful as could be imagined. They remain vague, confusing, opaque and incredibly subjective, and they trigger police powers to intervene in protest at an unbelievably inappropriate and low level. They make it hard for people to understand what they might or might not be able to do.
For the reasons that the shadow Minister set out, the powers are verging on the absurd. We have seen Ministers being drawn into debates about whether the presence of double-glazing might impact on whether a protest could be subject to restrictions. Even this evening, we have been drawn into debate about next-door neighbours and whether a protest at the Russian embassy would be okay if the next-door neighbour was a bunch of officers, but might not be okay if it was an old folks’ home. That is the level of absurdity.
All of these powers are dreadful from the point of view of the rule of law, of human rights and of democracy itself. On the other hand, the powers might also prove to be a poisoned chalice for police forces, which will struggle to justify any of their decision making on objective grounds or to defend themselves against charges that they are being political in their decision making, and that will be true whether or not they actually use the powers.
As the shadow Minister said, it is welcome that the concept of serious unease is being removed, but the point I made to the Minister was not properly addressed. The expression in the Bill as it stands is
“serious unease, alarm or distress”.
The Government are not just taking out the word “unease”; they are taking out the word “serious” alongside it. That means that the threshold is not “serious” alarm or “serious” distress, but just “alarm or distress”. As I said in my intervention, the Home Secretary has made a concession on the one hand, but she is taking much more away with the other, and that point has not been answered in any way, shape or form.
Frankly, these provisions are beyond saving. They are a botched, rushed job, just so that the Home Secretary could say that she was doing something about certain  protests that she did not like—no matter to her, it seems, that her legislation significantly impacts on the fundamental right to protest more generally. There is nothing left for it but to continue to insist that the whole lot comes out. The Government’s arguments have fallen to pieces, and I regard it as dreadful that they continue to try to bulldoze these provisions through Parliament. We will vote against the relevant Government motion to disagree, and I hope that the other place will continue to resist these utterly unjustifiable restrictions on the right to protest.

Stella Creasy: I welcome the journey that the Minister is on, because a week ago he told us that he was not convinced and needed to see more evidence. A week later, he has obviously been doing some reading, because now he wants to have more conversations and go further, faster. This evening, we want to help him keep up with the rest of us who have been looking at how we can tackle violence against women and to see what can be done. I welcome the words of the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on that.
When toxic masculinity is on show at the Oscars, in our streets and in our homes, all of us want to tackle it and none of us wants to condone it. The challenge with the Minister’s argument is that it is still inconsistent. As he admitted last week, misogyny drives crimes against women, but he is also saying that he does not know what he can do to help it. He just cannot make up his mind. It is almost like he is gaslighting himself. He needs to clarify whether he thinks things can change, as the sentencing guidelines already say. In this country, we can already recognise where hostility towards someone’s sex drives crimes. Does he think that is a good or a bad thing, as the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon said? The amendments before him from the Lords, and the amendment in lieu that I have tabled to try to help him find that compromise across both Houses, would tackle it.
Does the Minister think that the 17 police forces that are already doing this practice and that recognise—including the chief constables who have this said publicly—that it helps improve victim confidence and the data they have to tackle crimes, are doing the right thing? If he does not, surely he wants to stop them doing it, because it is wasting police time. Which is it? There are inconsistencies in his arguments.
The Minister talks about the Law Commission, and I am sure it is delighted to hear what he said, because this Government’s track record on the Law Commission is not very good. Since 2010, 17 Law Commission reviews have been accepted, but not implemented, and a further 16 have had no response at all. Of the 62 that have been done, only half of them have been implemented.
There is no argument here about making misogyny a hate crime, like it is some lump of plastic. This is about recognising, as the Minister did last week, where crimes are driven and what we can do about it, just as we have recognised where hatred of someone’s religion or racial background is driving crimes, and we have sent that message. His argument is about why that does not need to be statutory, but he is making an argument that it does need to be statutory, because a year ago this place was promised that that would happen. Pledges were made at the Dispatch Box.
Indeed, Ministers in the other place wrote to me to confirm those pledges. On 17 March 2021, the first commitment was made. On 8 July, we were told that the Home Office had met stakeholders to make it happen, and on 15 November, we were told there was a consultation. In the Minister’s letter to me, he said:
“You noted my commitment that the Home Office will ask the police to collect crimes of violence against the person”
in this way, and he confirmed that the police data requirements group would be taking that forward and that the details would be rolled out in May to meet the timetable of autumn last year, yet it has not happened. That is clearly an argument for making sure that where this good policing practice is already happening, it is extended across the country so that women are not facing a policing lottery as to whether their police forces are doing it.
The argument the Minister is making is precisely why we need to put this matter on the statute book and back those chief constables and 17 police forces that are already doing it. It is why we need to say to the 673,000 women who, according to House of Commons Library figures, reported being a victim of a personal crime in the past year, but did not come forward to the police, that we will learn what we can do to make them feel safe. It is why we should learn from the other place and Baroness Newlove, Baroness Bertin and Lord Russell, and Baroness Kennedy and the Scottish report, that deeds, not words matter.
The Minister says he recognises that the other place is frustrated by the slow pace of change. He says he is looking for the evidence. I encourage him to look at the independent evaluation that shows very clearly that including misogyny in hate crime helps policing and helps women come forward. We have to stop blaming women for not coming forward for crimes or saying that somehow we understand why they are cautious, and we have to start looking at what works.
We also have to stop hiding behind the Law Commission, because yet another review is not the commitment to deeds that women in this country want. Finding that only certain crimes can be motivated by misogyny does not recognise disabled women being targeted for fraud or Muslim women being targeted for both Islamophobic and misogynistic attacks. The Minister knows that the other place will not wear this any longer, and neither will women in this country. I urge him to do the right thing and accept the amendment in lieu. Let us get on with making sure that every woman is protected from misogyny in this country.

Alistair Carmichael: I will touch briefly on all three areas under debate this evening. On food crime, I am delighted that we have got to what seems a sensible, workable compromise. It tells something about the attitude of the Home Office and this Government in general to Parliament and the other place that for something as prosaic as this it has taken two rounds of ping-pong before the Government have been prepared to accept what was surely to the rest of the world blindingly obvious. I welcome the fact that we have got there nevertheless.
On the issue of misogyny, there is little I could add to the excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I might have had some more sympathy 20 to 25 years ago for some of the  arguments that the Minister advanced, but I have seen the way in which interaction with the criminal justice system has been transformed for so many different groups in our communities, in relation to racial aggravation, religious aggravation and the rest of it, and this measure is surely long overdue. A consultation, such as is being offered by the Minister, just does not cut it. If the Government were to have the courage of our convictions and to go ahead with an amendment such as the one tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, they would be doing something transformative in the way in which the police interact with women and girls, and are seen by them.
On noise protest, it will not be lost on the House that when I asked the Minister about the test to be applied he said that he would come to it later, but then did not do so, as he did not have any meaningful answer. As things stand, it is incredibly widely drawn and it takes us back to what used to be the situation in Scotland, where we described a breach of the peace as, “Anything that two cops did not quite like to the look of”. Things have advanced somewhat since then, but the broad definitions we are being asked to accept tonight are a retrograde step. Tellingly, the only answer the Minister had was, “Well, we’ve got courts who will look at these things and define them.” It is the job of this place, Parliament, when we are passing legislation, to give proper definition; we should not be subcontracting that to the courts, especially not on something as important as the right to protest. If that degree of uncertainty is left hanging, it is not difficult to see that there will quickly come to be a chilling effect. When we are dealing with legislation governing the right to protest, definition—the right of the individual to know exactly where they stand in relation to the police and the courts—is crucial. That is why it would be irresponsible of this House to allow the Government to have their way. If I were a frontline police officer or prosecutor,  I would see this as an absolute poisoned chalice and I would not want to have anything to do with it.

Nigel Evans: Geraint, you will have to sit down at 7.50.

Geraint Davies: I have just come back from Lithuania. Hundreds of women have escaped to there, having lost their democracy as a result of Putin’s bombing and his oppressing his people at home. At the same time, we have a situation in Hong Kong where democracy is being taken away. Yet here we are taking away the right to peaceful protest, which has given us the suffragettes, climate change activists, peace campaigners and trade unions. This horrific bit of legislation will completely undermine the right of trade unionists to picket, at a difficult time in our economic evolution; it is purely terrible and it should not be brought forward. It is completely unnecessary, it will be very damaging to trade union relationships and it will drive protests underground, which, taken alongside the right for covert intelligence agents to act above the law, may lead to unintended consequences and will put the public at risk. Democracy and our public are at risk from this dreadful Bill, and it should be reversed as quickly as possible.

Kit Malthouse: It is traditional to express gratitude  to Members for contributing to a debate, but after  that nonsense, I am afraid that I cannot unequivocally offer that.
I welcome the support across the House for the amendments in lieu on food crime. I am afraid that amendment (c)—which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—in lieu of Lords amendment 72B is unnecessary and misdirected, despite her attempts to patronise me. It is unnecessary because, as I said, the Government have already committed to collecting the data that is described and they have additionally committed to consulting on a new public sexual harassment offence before the summer recess. It is misdirected because the Government’s original amendment responds directly to a specific recommendation of the Law Commission. Furthermore, our commitment to consult on a public sexual harassment offence speaks to another Law Commission recommendation that we explore the merits of such an offence, as well as the significant attention to that issue in our previous debates. I take into account the entreaties from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) to go faster and harder on this matter.
By contrast, the idea of contemplating that any additional new offence addresses
“intimidatory offences aggravated by sex or gender”
is untethered to any particular rationale or proper discussion to date. In fact, I would go further in saying that we need to move away from the preoccupation with hate crime laws. I was struck by the words of Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws in the other place:
“Most men do not hate women, but somehow from boyhood they breathe in this sense of entitlement”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 797.]
However, Lords amendment 58B focuses not on addressing that entitlement, but on hostility—the legal test for hate crimes. The broader point by the Law Commission is that the concept is naturally unsuited to confronting the widespread and abhorrent behaviour most often directed against women and girls. Hate crime laws instead turn on those visceral occasions that befit the word “hatred”, such as a racial slur uttered during a crime.
The fact that hate crime legal models are poorly attuned to the sorts of behaviour that we want to tackle was put very well by Rape Crisis in the Law Commission’s report, which said of crimes against women and girls that
“these crimes are rooted in power and control, not hatred, making the gender/sex an ill-fitting protected characteristic in the hate crime framework.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) made the same point in the last debate on this matter.
The point is that we need to think carefully about the right model for the particular problem that we want to address. An entirely bespoke solution, which addresses the root drivers of this behaviour, is more likely to succeed. The alternative, as proposed in Lords amendment 58B, is an offence that is poorly targeted and consequently never used, so let us now do the proper groundwork—I give an undertaking that we will do that—in identifying the right legal solution to the particular nature of these crimes. I hope that all Opposition Members will contribute to the consultation that we have committed to introducing before the recess. We are already exploring whether a public sexual harassment offence is that solution, and that is what the Law Commission also spoke about.
On the Lords amendments relating to public order, we have heard yet again the ridiculously misconceived claims that are peddled about these amendments. The Public Order Act has always sought to balance the right to peaceful protest with the rights of others to go about their daily lives. All we are doing is a modest updating of a legal framework that is more than 35 years old—I thought that would have been supported by the party who banned any protest within a kilometre and a half of Parliament—and does not reflect the realities of policing protests in the third decade of the 21st century.
To suggest that any amount of noise and disruption is acceptable is saying to the British public, adversely affected by a protest, that their rights do not matter and that they should just put up with it. Their rights do matter. Of course, we must accept that protests can be disruptive and cause inconvenience, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and the provisions in the Bill simply enable the police to draw that line where it becomes necessary and proportionate to place restrictions on a protest to protect the rights of others.
It is more than a year since the Bill was introduced. It has been thoroughly debated and scrutinised by both Houses. The unelected and, as I said, partially hereditary House has exercised its right to ask us to consider certain matters again. We have done so once already. We should again send these amendments back to the Lords, and that House should now accept the will of this democratically elected House and let the Bill pass.
Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 58 and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
A Division was called.

Nigel Evans: There do not appear to be any Tellers, so I am calling the Division off.
Question agreed to.
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Order, 28 February).
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

After Clause 54 - Intimidatory offences aggravated by sex or gender

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 72B and proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.—(Kit Malthouse.)

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 148.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 55 - Imposing Conditions on Public Assemblies

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73, insists on its amendment 74A to Lords amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 74B to that amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87, insists on its amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73 and additional amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87.—(Kit Malthouse.)

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 202.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 56 - Imposing conditions on public assemblies

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 80, insists on its amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E and 80F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with that amendment, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 80G instead of the words left out by that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 80.—(Kit Malthouse.)

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 202.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15 and No. 41(A)),
That, at this day’s sitting, the Motion in the name of Mark Spencer, relating to Business of the House (Today) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.

Backbench Business

War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Payments

Owen Thompson: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the current process for claiming War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation payments is not fit for purpose and urges the Government to launch an independent inquiry into the system’s failings.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for debate and the Leader of the House for arranging time tonight in a timeslot that is not normally allocated for Back-Bench business. That is very much appreciated after the debate was moved from last Thursday.
In recent years, many of us have become disconnected from the idea of war. It is becoming something that happens far away to people we do not know. We might try to keep on top of the news, but the human stories are often lost. However, the war in Ukraine has reminded us that armed conflict is not just something remote and abstract; the sad truth is that it can happen anywhere when political processes break down or when leaders put their egos above human life. Ukraine has reminded us of another truth: wars are not fought by armies; they are fought by individuals each with a life as complex as our own. When we hear the stories from Ukrainian civilians leaving behind their careers and families to take up arms to defend their country, we see the human face behind every member of those armed forces. When we hear the stories of teenage Russian conscripts surrendering in tears, we see that under each helmet is a complex and unique individual.
Whether or not we agree with the motives of a conflict, or disagree with the concept of war in principle, that all takes second place to our ability to recognise the humanity in every individual, and veterans are central to this. Many veterans have seen the very worst of humanity, so it seems only right that when they return home they should be greeted by its very best: compassion, recognition and respect. They have given all for their state and it is only right that the state, in turn, should give its all for them. That is the key principle in why it is so important to compensate veterans fairly. It is about recognising our duty of care to help them to live a full and dignified life post service, and doing so with respect to their individuality. Schemes such as war pensions and the armed forces compensation scheme are absolutely critical in delivering our duty of care to solidify our commitment to veterans by pledging that whatever injuries, mental or physical, someone receives during their time in the forces, or whatever existing condition was worsened, the burden of that harm should be carried by the state, not by the veteran. It is absolutely correct in its simple recognition that whatever harm was incurred in the name of the state is the state’s responsibility.
That is not asking for much; in fact, it is the bare minimum that we can do to show that we respect these veterans for what they have done to support all of us. Yet the reason we are here today is that at the moment, at least, that bare minimum is not being met. The Government are not yet recognising the duty of care towards veterans. They are not offering to freely and unconditionally carry the financial burden of their injuries.  They are not respecting veterans. Yes, war pensions and the compensation scheme exist, but the way in which they are being administered is a national scandal that should have us all hanging our heads in shame. The process, as it stands, operates in a way that discourages veterans from pursuing their claims. It is loaded with presumptions that veterans are not entitled to compensation, making them prove eligibility beyond any reasonable standards. It is a process that is inherently distrustful, presuming that veterans are trying to swindle the system. It is mired with complicated terminology and legalese, with little signposting for those who need it most.

Bob Stewart: I speak as someone with a one-third war disability pension. When I left the armed forces, I had a medical, and that signposted me to get the disability pension. People do not necessarily have to wait until they get a condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

Owen Thompson: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I will come to that point, but we see a lack of transparency and serious questions about conflicts of interest. As a result, the process pushes veterans into poverty, ill health and, sadly, even suicide.
I was first made aware of the seriousness of the issue by my constituent Garry McDermott, a former lance corporal with the Royal Scots who left the armed forces in 2003. As a result of his time in service, he had been diagnosed with complex PTSD, and he suffers from a variety of physical health issues including with his hips and his knees. Those injuries were caused or worsened by his time in the service of his country, but, when he returned home and sought compensation, he found that the country was not willing to serve him.
Garry has been fighting for more than a decade for the Government simply to recognise their duty of care towards him and pay him what he is due under his war pension. Time and again, they shirked responsibility by denying a link between his injuries and his time in service. His physical health has severely deteriorated over the past decade—he now needs a new knee and two new hips—due to trauma induced by carrying 80 kg bags during his time in service. That was confirmed by his Army medical files, yet he has been refused an increased payment. Medical advisers at Veterans UK have denied the link between Garry’s time in service and his injuries time and again. Damage to his teeth from his time in service was noted as “poor dental hygiene” by Veterans UK. Damage to his toes was said to be due to fungus. One time, his ability to go for a run to support his own mental health was held against him. Whenever he put in a claim, he was made to feel like he was trying to cheat the system and not worthy of the Government’s support. He was not claiming for millions of pounds or thousands of pounds—these are claims for an extra £22 a week.
Mistreatment of one veteran is bad enough, but Garry is one of thousands. The true scale of the scandal became clearer when I raised his case at business questions only a matter of months ago and was told:
“It is not always right to draw conclusions about a whole system from one case.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 517.]
The reaction to that statement proved otherwise, as social media exploded with veterans who had experienced the same issues as Garry and were dismayed by the  former Leader of the House’s flippant dismissal. Dozens contacted me directly to set the record straight: the problem was systematic and they were the very proof of that. The veterans whom I have spoken to have been in all ranks of our forces, including majors and colonels, and it is extremely widespread.
Let us look at Veterans UK’s recent customer satisfaction survey. Of the 324 veterans surveyed about their satisfaction levels in using the war pension scheme, only 36% noted any level of satisfaction, and 32% gave it a one—the lowest possible rating. For the armed forces compensation scheme, it was even more dire, with only 13% giving any sort of positive rating above five; meanwhile, half of veterans rated their satisfaction at one, which again was the lowest possible option. If war pensions are not bad enough, it seems that the scheme that replaced them is even worse. More generally, the dissatisfaction rate with the Veterans UK claims process is a shocking 80%.
Because of the sheer scale of the issue, it is easy to get lost in the details of individual cases. However, important as those are, they give Veterans UK and the Ministry of Defence the chance to portray them as outliers, which they are not. They are symptoms of a system that is simply unfit for purpose. We need to take a step back and identify the recurring issues among the cases: the common threads that show us that the problem is systematic. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has helped to identify the problems, including campaigning groups such as the Independent Defence Authority and Justice4Troops and, most of all, the veterans who have reached out to share their own stories.
The first issue is that the system of war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments operates with a presumption against awarding veterans with their claims. Let us start with the cold, hard statistics. Since April 2009, of the 107,000 disablement claims cleared at initial review under the war pension scheme, 32% have been declined. Only 59% of those whose claims passed forward received a financial award.
Of the 94,000 armed forces compensation scheme claims, 31% have failed at the initial stage, and 74% of appeals have been rejected. Only 57% of claims have resulted in a financial award. The fact that a third of claims fall at the first hurdle and only a minority make it through the appeals process paints a bleak picture of claimants’ chances. That is especially worrying given the fact that the stats date mostly from before Veterans UK took over the assessment processes. According to many veterans, that has worsened the situation.
Interestingly, the MOD does not hold in a collated format stats on how many claimants decided to withdraw or not to take steps to progress their claim—the details are tucked away in the paper files of each case. I have been told that the reason for making the information so difficult to locate is that it is
“not information the Ministry of Defence needs to capture in order to process claims or monitor performance.”
I cannot imagine any reason why holding data on how many veterans give up on the process would not be conducive to monitoring its success, but that is where we are.
Whatever the case, far too many veterans do give up. They are faced with a system that presumes they are trying to swindle it. Many veterans, like my constituent   Garry, find themselves struggling to prove that their health conditions were caused by their time in our forces. The slightest ability still to do any physical exercise is held against them and injuries sustained in service are noted down as otherwise. It is the same cruel and distrustful approach to benefits that is embodied by universal credit, with people being made to undergo undignified tests to prove their disabilities.
Even when it clashes with professional opinion, Veterans UK keeps denying claims. Army medical files that prove causation between time in service and injuries are regularly ignored. Similar tests that are carried out for other benefits—such as personal independence payments—and prove unfitness to work are ignored. Veterans are made to feel like they are guilty until proven innocent. In some cases, evidence of a veteran’s disability has seemingly—this claim has been made to me—been doctored to underplay its severity. In one case, a veteran’s medical files stated that they could walk 140 metres with discomfort, but when their claim was rejected, part of the reason given was that they could walk 140 metres—there was no mention of the discomfort.
One veteran, a former major, told me:
“Veterans UK have followed an unofficial policy of ‘Deny, Delay, hope you Die’ in which at the first stage they claim you don’t have that injury, then when it’s proven they insist on a level of evidence that the claimant must provide, despite the fact that they have full access to my medical record, then they attempt to claim that the cause wasn’t service, such as in my case they attributed my deafness to my age, which is currently 49.”
As with universal credit, it boils down to saving money. An ideological dogma of small government has led to starved public resources and a scramble to save money here and there. The ones who pay the price are those who need help the most—in this case, veterans. It is evident that the system is rigged to deny veterans their claims for the feeblest of excuses, at all costs. It should go without saying that no amount of money saved is worth the lives and livelihoods of those who gave their all for all of us. The overarching goal of a body like Veterans UK should be not to save money but to do all it can to repay the debt that we owe our veterans.
Of course, the MOD says that assessments are arrived at through evidence-based professional judgement and that medical advisers seek to advise on the pre-existing evidence rather than to diagnose issues. However, as we have heard, it is not uncommon for existing evidence to be ignored or, allegedly, altered. Medical advisers seem consistently to exceed their remit to pursue a policy of cost-cutting and cover-up.
The role of medical advisers ties into another issue that runs through veterans’ testimonies. Many veterans have raised questions about the lack of transparency around obtaining details of who makes decisions on their claims. Personal privacy is of course paramount—I do not think anyone would question that—but it should be balanced with veterans’ right to know that their assessors are the right people to make the decisions, even if for nothing other than their peace of mind. There is no transparency on that front, and veterans feel completely in the dark about the people who make these life-altering decisions. Medical advisers stay deep in the shadows, even going as far as to refuse to appear on video link at tribunals. The Minister might consider  how dehumanising that can be for a veteran—to feel that their fate is in the hands of a faceless bureaucrat. What is so hard about treating veterans like human beings and creating a healthy, open relationship between them and their medical advisers?
In one case, a veteran requested a statement from a medical adviser on why they thought he had PTSD, but they declined to do so, saying that they were not qualified to make such a judgment. However, the same assessor then rejected their claim relating to PTSD deterioration. How can an adviser make a judgment on one, but not on the other? I just cannot understand that. It might be explained by seeing exactly what the assessors do, opening that up and shining a light on it.
Perhaps even more concerning is the reuse of the same medical adviser at different stages in the appeals process. Testimony after testimony has complained to me about the same individual assessor giving their judgment on a claim at the initial stage, the appeal and then feeding into the tribunal. Separate advisers should be used to ensure impartiality and a range of opinions. Surely the whole point of appealing is to get a second opinion to reassess the claim from a new point of view. If the adviser used at the initial stage is then brought in for the appeal, how can a veteran be assured that their claim will not just be subject to the same opinions that rejected it in the first place? Where is the fairness and where is the impartiality? At best, it is serious neglect in the system design, leading to a conflict of interest. At worst, it is a deliberate choice to cut costs by rigging the system against veterans. It is little wonder that so few appeals get anywhere. All of this contributes to a feeling that there is a huge power imbalance between the veterans and those assessing them.
The picture painted of Veterans UK is that it puts cost-cutting above its duty to protect veterans’ lives and livelihoods; it perpetuates a culture of distrust towards veterans, and sees many as dishonest and unworthy of compensation; it operates under an assumption that veterans will not get their compensation—a case of “guilty until proven innocent”; it overrides medical and professional opinion to claim that injuries were not caused by time in service; and it hides behind a lack of transparency around its medical advisers. Most of all, however, it completely disregards the debt that society owes to our veterans.
Of course, there is a serious human cost to this. According to Lisa Scullion and Katherine Curchin, writing in the Journal of Social Policy,
“it is evident that there is a lack of understanding of the impact of trauma on people’s psychosocial functioning and, as a result, veterans are treated in ways which are variously perceived as disrespectful, unfair or disempowering and in some cases exacerbate existing mental health problems.”
Returning from the unimaginable conditions of war, physical and mental trauma leaves many feeling vulnerable, isolated and financially unstable. PTSD is rife, and the risk of self-harm and suicide can be high. Subjecting this community to complex, lengthy and demeaning processes to claim the money they need to support themselves does nothing but exacerbate mental health problems. They are forced to relive trauma and put their mental health on the line.
For some veterans, their lengthy fights to claim their money is simply too much to bear. Many simply give up and some, tragically, take their own lives. They simply  cannot bear the mental strain of fighting for years—sometimes decades—to be told that they cannot be recognised as worthy of help. One veteran told me:
“In September last year, I had a full physical and mental breakdown because of all these accusations that I’m not as injured as make out, and again tried to hang myself. I was diagnosed with Complex PTSD directly because of the MoD.”
Yet Veterans UK is ill-equipped to deal with this. It even admitted in a written statement that it has no policy in place to deal with veterans suffering from mental health issues. I welcome the Minister’s pledge to start publishing veterans’ suicide rates in England and Wales, starting next year. It is important that the MOD does understand the scale of the problem across the UK as a whole.
I have been delighted by the level of support from across the Chamber in bringing forward this debate, and I am certainly not here seeking any kind of political scalp. This is not about point scoring; this is an entirely cross-party issue. We are united by wanting to do the very best by our veterans. We simply want the Government to hear the pain veterans are in and address it. That is why we need an independent inquiry into the failures of Veterans UK. It is evident that a few tweaks around the edges will not be enough to fix the system.
Root-and-branch reform is needed to build the foundations of a system informed by different philosophies and following different priorities. An independent inquiry should investigate how Veterans UK arrived at the culture of cost-cutting. It should give veterans an opportunity to air their concerns and feel listened to. Most importantly, it should lay the groundwork for a new approach. For instance, there would be huge benefits in creating a system using the principles of trauma-informed care. Again, in the Journal of Social Policy, Lisa Scullion and Katherine Curchin write that
“the application of trauma-informed care principles to the UK social security system could improve interactions within this system and avoid re-traumatising those experiencing on-going or unresolved trauma.”
In the meantime, we could take actions right now that could save lives. Untimely payments cost lives; target times should be reduced as far as possible. War pension payments that exceed their target by a fortnight must be brought into line with it. On top of that, the Confederation of Service Charities, or Cobseo, has raised concerns about the backlog of appeals awaiting resolution. Immediate steps could be taken to progress that. Veterans UK’s policies around the consideration given to previous health assessments undertaken during a veteran’s time in service must be taken into account fully and properly.
This is the right time to make changes. The armed forces compensation scheme will be reviewed this year, and major work is being done to digitise the schemes. Now is the time: the opportunities are there to lay the groundwork for a better system, including by addressing the recommendations of the previous five-yearly reviews in 2010 and 2017.
All these actions are necessary, but without an independent inquiry to lay the foundations of a new approach, the MOD risks tinkering around the edges. I appreciate that not all these issues can be fixed with the wave of a magic wand; I do not think anyone would expect that. Reforming the treatment of veterans will be   a long process. But that could start now with an inquiry, simply to recognise what has gone wrong, learn from the mistakes and understand how we can do better.
I urge the Minister to take this call seriously and bring forward plans for an inquiry. Our veterans deserve our respect. They deserve better than what they are currently receiving. They deserve an independent inquiry, and a new system that recognises their humanity. I urge hon. Members to support this call.

James Sunderland: I commend the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this debate. When he asked me to speak, it was hard to refuse. There are reasons for that. First, I am a veteran myself, along with my good and right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans and also have the privilege of chairing the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee. I have a vested interest in this important issue.
The first thing I want to say is that there are 2.2 million veterans or thereabouts in the UK. The fact is that they are not all mad, bad or sad: the vast majority live life perfectly successfully and happily, and are doing very well indeed. I do not know many officers or soldiers who are sleeping under Waterloo bridge, but we cannot deny the problem because we know that there is one.
My point is that although the vast majority of veterans are being looked after and doing really well, a percentage of them have an issue. Whether that is 5% or 8% depends on what we read, but some among us are identified as being in bad health and there is no question at all but that we have a moral responsibility to help those who have served in our armed forces. That is a no-brainer, and it must happen. But maybe there is a disconnect in respect of what they expect of us in society and what they are not getting.
The armed forces compensation scheme is a good scheme that has much to be commended. It is a great scheme, and I commend those volunteers who work within it—the assessors, medical staff, and all those who make it happen and do the best they can to improve the lot of our veterans. Yes, there are some examples of where the scheme has not provided sufficient care for those in need. We heard a bit about that earlier, and inboxes for all MPs are a barometer of what might be lurking out there. I feel fortunate in Bracknell, but I know other colleagues are not so fortunate with what they get in their inboxes. That encourages us to action, as we have to make the appropriate interventions.
There are situations where veterans can be penalised if they are getting better, and a lot of the assessments come down to the day on which someone is assessed. Are they having a good day or a bad day? Are they showing an improvement this week? There is an inconsistency with the assessments, and we know that some veterans have been wrongfully assessed. Mental health problems can go under the radar. Some veterans do not want to present with mental health problems, and they keep things to themselves. I commend Op COURAGE, the fantastic new initiative being led by the MOD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. It is brilliant. We had a read-out last week at the all-party group on veterans, and the stuff that is happening is really good. We are moving in the right direction.
There is no question in my mind that in the main, MOD pensions, war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments are generous and fair. It is a good scheme that befits those who have undertaken armed service. Anecdotally, as we have heard, there may be an issue, and that is what I want briefly to scratch now. I find myself in the strange predicament of suggesting that we may have a problem and that there may be a solution, but that we do not know what that solution might be because we have not defined the problem. That is our first task: what is that problem, and how deep does it go? It is easy to admire the problem, but as politicians we should be focused on the solution.
Veterans UK fulfils a vital function for the MOD, but it assesses and it awards, and it may be that marking one’s own homework brings its own problems. Is the problem systematic? It may be—we do not know. About 2,500 veterans are believed to be in this trap—let us call it the assessment and award trap. Are they presenting better? Are they presenting worse? Once again, it depends what day we look. Can we separate out those functions? When the next armed forces Bill is discussed in 2026, perhaps it could include a clause on that. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Midlothian said earlier, we need to appoint an independent assessor versus Veterans UK. Perhaps there is an enhanced role for our service charities, such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the British Legion, and Combat Stress. Perhaps we could do a lot more with our armed forces champions. Perhaps local councils could intervene.
Perhaps, however, we need another solution altogether, such as veterans advisory and pensions committees. Hon. Members might recall that during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill in 2021, Lord Lancaster tabled an amendment in the other place to get the Bill to incorporate the functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees, to include all functions covered by the covenant, and to get a change to the current statutory instrument. He withdrew that amendment because the Government offered a concession to draft a Government-sponsored hand-out Bill—perhaps a private Member’s Bill—in the next Session of Parliament. We may face that in due course, which I would welcome.
What does that actually mean? In brief, VAPCs are regional statutory committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland—that have been established by a statutory instrument under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989. It seems perfect—social security Act, statutory body, one can see the connection straightaway. The VAPC handbook, published by the MOD, states that each VAPC is an advisory non-departmental body that acts independently of its sponsor department, the MOD—you can see where we are going with this. Currently, VAPCs cannot be given functions relating to all veterans, because that is outside the extent of the enabling power which limits the functions of VAPCs to war pensions, armed forces compensation scheme benefits, those claiming and receiving them, and their families. Well, guess what? That is what we are talking about, so it may be that the VAPCs are perfectly placed to do that bit of work within their existing statute, or it might be that an amendment, such as the one proposed in 2021, would give VAPCs a power  to be given functions relating to all veterans. It is a neat trick and an easy one to amend, so again I commend it to the House.
Importantly, VAPCs could be given a statutory role, subject to resources and perhaps supported by the charities and the NHS, to provide a voice of reason for Veterans UK, perhaps as some kind of independent assessor, critical friend or voice of conscience. I regret that at this point in time I do not have a ready solution in terms of the mechanism by which that might take place, but it stands to reason from what we said earlier this evening that it is worthy of consideration. I believe that VAPCs could be really important in this particular area to provide that link and that voice of conscience with Veterans UK.
Ultimately, before I finish, anything that resolves the loose ends and allows us to get granularity on what veterans are currently facing, and anything that allows us to dig deeper and understand that there is an institutional systemic problem, is to be welcomed. Anything that we do in this country in support of veterans is to be applauded.

Anum Qaisar: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this important debate, and I start my contribution by paying tribute to the veterans from my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts, which has a long military history. We must do all we can to support those who have made immense sacrifices.
As my hon. Friend stated, the current process for claiming war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments is simply not fit for purpose. It drives many veterans to give up on their claims. The process is complex, there is a lack of transparency, and they are very often faced with extended delays. Those issues have led to a severe deterioration in the mental health of many veterans. They have driven many into poverty and increased the risk of suicide. It is currently believed that there are thousands of individuals suffering such issues while awaiting a final decision. This issue is not an isolated factor impacting the mental health of our veterans. In fact, it raises wider issues around the military’s treatment of the mental health of veterans, along with occupational wellbeing such as pensions.
There is an issue very specific to one of my constituents. Over a significant period of time, she has been writing to her elected MP—me and my predecessors—for Airdrie and Shotts. She spoke to me recently about her son. She told me that her son joined the trade and supply branch of the forces in May 1988 and remained in service for a number of years. He was in consultation with doctors over his back pains. However, doctors repeatedly dismissed his pains and appeared unsympathetic. Despite protesting that he was unwell, he was placed back on to normal duties. He was deployed again and took part in a number of exercises with full kit, despite those back pains. When he arrived back in the UK and spoke to doctors, they again dismissed his claims that the training had exacerbated his pain and said that a previous car accident was to blame. At that time, my constituent’s son was unable to sleep without prescribed medical treatment. This specific case goes further and I am short of time, but the story of my constituent and her son really does get to the heart of how we treat our veterans in terms of their wellbeing, be it their mental health or their occupational wellbeing, such as receiving pensions.
My constituent’s son sadly died in 2011, despite his specific case being raised a number of times on these very Benches by four different MPs for Airdrie and Shotts. What is still abundantly clear is that despite veterans sacrificing so much for this country, the UK Government are simply not ensuring that mental health and occupational wellbeing, such as pensions for veterans, are a priority.
In the Scottish Parliament, the SNP has established a £1.7 million Scottish veterans fund to support projects that provide a wide range of advice and practical support to veterans across Scotland. In Scotland, we have also appointed a Scottish Veterans Commissioner, who is the first person to hold such a position across all four nations.
We in the SNP believe that veterans are an asset to our society and deserve the best possible care. I applaud my Airdrie and Shotts veterans for their immense sacrifices, and I believe that all veterans deserve to be fairly compensated for injury, illness and death caused by their time in the armed forces.

Justin Madders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on his tenacity in campaigning on this issue for some time. I also congratulate him on securing this debate and on his introduction to it, which exposed the injustices and the flaws in the current system. I have had experiences of the system through one constituent in particular, but it is clear that he has uncovered a whole range of systematic flaws. Those who have served our country and made sacrifices deserve a system that is fair and supportive to them. He was right to say that we should consider it a matter of shame that we do not have that, and I pay tribute to his work in this area.
I want to talk about my experiences with the system—particularly in relation to a constituent of mine, David Cottrell, whom we discussed in an Adjournment debate more than three years ago—and why there are still issues today. I recognise that covid-19 has caused delays in dealing with claims, but that does not excuse the delays and the errors that have been made by Veterans UK in losing documents on two occasions and taking more than six months simply to copy paperwork. My constituent does not feel as though his claim and subsequent appeal are being treated fairly when he sees that happening regularly.
I know that the Royal British Legion is calling for the direct lodgement process, which is available in Scotland, to be extended to England and Wales. That would allow appeals to be sent directly to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, rather than having to go through Veterans UK. In the legion’s experience, direct lodgement is more efficient. That is of little surprise given that the customer journey, as it is called, via the current route represents a 13-stage process with the involvement of Veterans UK. Direct lodgement would also provide reassurance about the independence of the tribunals service, which is currently lacking, particularly for my constituent.
When we consider that over the last 10 years, more than 60% of war pension appeals have been unsuccessful—in comparison, 37% of personal independence payment appeals are unsuccessful—we can begin to see why veterans feel as though the process is not working for them.  Essentially, we ask people to apply to Veterans UK and then, if that decision is wrong, to go back to Veterans UK to appeal and wait for it to decide whether a review is possible. At that stage, if there is no change, the case worker at Veterans UK must have prepared appeal papers, which are then passed on to the reprographics department. Only at that point are they sent to the tribunals service. I think anyone can see how the appeal process is overly convoluted.
The involvement of Veterans UK, which is the subject of the appeal, risks, at the very least, the perception of a conflict of interest. Of course, it is reasonable for a mechanism to allow review without the need for a tribunal hearing, and of course it is necessary for Veterans UK to provide its response to the appeal. However, both those matters could be dealt with under a different system. It seems plain to me that introducing direct lodgement would be at least a step forward for veterans in England and Wales, and I hope the Government will take that request on board. I struggle to think of any truly independent appeal process in which an appeal must first go through the body that is being appealed against. I really do not know what that adds to the process and, as we have heard, it creates more concern and problems.
There is a focus at the moment on ensuring that those waiting get their cases to tribunal can do so with as little delay as possible, following the closure of the service for a significant period during the pandemic. I am pleased that the Government have committed to reducing waiting times, but the Royal British Legion has said that it is essential that, as the default provider of representation, it has the capacity to deliver its services to those who need support. I understand that following some discussions, there has been a little slowing down to enable hearings to match the legion’s capacity. However, there is a question mark about how long that arrangement will last, so I ask for some assurances that any attempts to clear the backlog are done with the welfare of veterans at heart to ensure that they are properly represented.
Clearly we all want veterans’ appeals heard as soon as possible, but it is vital that they come out of that process feeling that they have been properly represented and their cases have been properly heard. In the context of the repeated concerns about independence, it would be a cause of concern if the acceleration of the clearing of the backlog hindered the legion or any other provider from providing the representation that veterans need.
On a slightly tangential point, I am sure that many Members will, when contacting organisations, have had challenges about whether they have their constituents’ consent. As we all know—indeed, we commonly quote it—statutory instrument No. 2905 of 2002 covers the authority of MPs to act on behalf of their constituents. It has therefore been a source of frustration that Veterans UK seems to be unaware of that provision. We have managed to get that resolved, but it does not show an organisation that is particularly customer-focused.
It is accepted that the pandemic has caused delays to the normal functions of the application, assessment, and appeals process, but I was concerned to see that the number of claims made to the war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme dropped by almost 40% from 2019-20. While we must acknowledge the impact that the pandemic had on that, it is notable that the decrease in personal independence payment applications for the same period was much less at around 27%.  Perhaps the decision to prioritise PIP assessments by alternative means, while the war pensions process ground to a halt, offers some explanation, but it feels to many that the system for war pensions was simply closed for a period of time.
From April to August 2020, there were 200,000 PIP assessments, yet not one war pension medical assessment took place. In Mr Cottrell’s case, that meant a decision was made on his claim without a medical assessment report, and the decision maker specifically referred in the decision notice to having to decide on the claim in lieu of such evidence—the inference being that the decision may have been different if an assessment had taken place. Mr Cottrell certainly believes that to be the case.
The feedback I have received from those navigating the war pensions process is that veterans feel they are an afterthought, and the comparison with how PIP is dealt with certainly makes them feel that way. The DWP does not apply a target time for the clearance of war pensions claims. My understanding from the last question on the subject is that the average time is 127 working days, or six months. For Mr Cottrell, who was also claiming PIP, the difference in approach was stark. His PIP renewal claim in 2020 was dealt with within 18 days. It is reasonable to ask why the same standards cannot apply to war pensions.
I am told that the vastly different timeframes are based on the long-term performance of the war pensions scheme, and that will remain
“until the digitisation and transformation of the WPS is complete in 2023”.
That essentially means there will be little improvement for veterans for at least another year while that digitisation process takes place. It is perhaps unsurprising that veterans do not feel they are being given much priority and that they feel like an afterthought. The schemes designed to ensure they can access the financial support they need through their pensions are lagging behind numerous social security benefits, and that is together with the fact that we are now in the third year of waiting for the digital answer to the veterans ID card. That is another example of how veterans feel they are not being treated as a priority.
I would like to conclude with Mr Cottrell’s own words. He asks that the Government
“meet some Veterans and ask them what they think of the service Veterans UK provide to people who have served this County and have been damaged either physically or mentally by their service”.
As we have shown and heard today, it is not possible to discuss the war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme without looking at the role and performance of Veterans UK, so I would like the Minister to commit to listening to constituents such as mine, veterans such as Mr Cottrell, and to addressing their concerns, in order to drive some improvements in the service, because we all believe that veterans deserve the very best service in these areas, as in every other service they use, as a thank you for their service and duty over many years.

Martin Docherty: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Perhaps there will be a  certain type of reply to his final question, because I asked the Minister this morning about the Army’s future soldier programme and how it engages with those in what we weirdly call the “ordinary ranks”. I think the answer to him will be the same as the one to me about veterans engaging in this process—I got a less than effusive response this morning.
The reason I wish to speak in this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) is because I know the case of his constituent Garry and because, having been on the Defence Committee for a number of years—it is always good to see its former Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis,) with us—I wish to follow up on a couple of issues. Not only that, but my nephew is a member of the Royal Engineers and is now extending his time in the armed forces, and I am delighted for him. As the Minister will know, he was my brother’s commanding officer for at least one of his tours of Afghanistan, my brother being a reservist; so much of the backbone of the armed forces is in the reserves, but we will come on to that in a wee minute. I may also take up the points made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) about chairing the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill last year. Was it last year?

James Sunderland: 2021.

Martin Docherty: It was 2021, yes. The hon. Gentleman had to do that online, and I congratulate him on that. A range of issues similar to those faced by Garry, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, consistently came up; here we are in the 21st century and members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland require us to stand and have these debates. They require us to stand and say how wonderful it is for charities to support them—charity! I find that extraordinary. I am more a fan of the Danish model, where a member of the armed forces, no matter their rank and how long they have been in the armed forces, receives the same treatment as every other citizen, because the treatment is that good that they do not need anything different and they do not need to rely on charity.
I know that many of the charitable organisations that support members of the armed forces—there are a lot of them—do a power of work and have done for a number of years. Many of them have done this for  a very long time, such as the Royal British Legion, Poppyscotland and others. When it comes to issues such as war pensions and armed forces compensation pay schemes, I wonder to myself, “Is it really up to charities or even the body itself, the war pensions armed forces scheme, to be part of this process, to the exclusion not only of veterans, but members of the armed forces themselves?” That comes back to the crux of the matter.
I know that Conservative Members will disagree with what I am about to say, but I am glad that the Labour party decided at the last election to agree with the SNP on the requirement for an armed forces representative body. That is the missing cog in this wheel. We see that time and again. For example, if we go back to the extraordinary report led by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), through the Defence Committee, on women in the armed forces, we see that a clear clarion call about the treatment of women was that women in  the “ordinary ranks” were not being listened to. We see the exact same thing when it comes to terms and conditions or the future armed services programme: no one is listening to the ordinary ranks. I am in disbelief that we are still going through old conundrum.
If we look at so many of the armed forces across the NATO alliance, we see that because they have independent armed forces representative bodies like a police federation, without the right to strike—apart from in the Netherlands, where people have that right—they are able to move forward in agreement, in negotiation with their Governments. In the Scandinavian model and, notably, in Denmark, we see that this also comes with the vast majority of Parliament agreeing a set out programme over a period, for example, a parliamentary term. So there is engagement, discussion, debate and agreement about treatment and terms and conditions, including pensions.
It beggars belief that nearly 80 years after the second world war, we are still talking about veterans as though they were charity cases. It is extraordinary that 21st-century parliamentarians are still having this type of debate, no matter how good or well intentioned the charities are that provide so much support. However, as someone who worked in charities before coming to Parliament, I was always trying to do myself out of a job. I know, frankly, that that will go down like a lead balloon with some, but the reality is that the failure to move forward with engagement, discussion, deliberation and agreement continues to fail veterans. It will continue to fail veterans now, as well as people such as my nephew who will be veterans at some point. I hope that, by that time, we will have moved forward and will have an independent armed forces representative body.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to speak in it, just as it is to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who is certainly the soldier’s champion on union issues. It is very important to have the ordinary soldier represented in this place. It is nice to see in the Chamber the chair of the all-party group on veterans, the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and I thank him for all he does for veterans. I also look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that, deep in his heart, he has a love for and an interest in veterans, and he is in post because he does it well. However, we have to highlight the issues that need reiterating and we look to him for a helpful response tonight, as we always do.
I declare an interest as a former part-time soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for some 14 and a half years. I also pay special tribute to my Strangford constituents, who have always been strong supporters of all the services—especially the Army, as well as the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.
Members will be under no illusion about my view on our armed forces. I am supremely proud of them and supremely embarrassed about their treatment by this so-called grateful nation. It is critical that we remember the importance of the armed forces compensation scheme, which was born out of the need to support large numbers of service personnel and their families as a result of the  fatalities and injuries sustained in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully, the military are not as exposed operationally now as they were then, although if Putin continues as he has started, we may find that we have a need for their training, services and sacrifices once more. Regardless of the machinations of that despot, however, the scheme is still critical.
The lasting impact on soldiers is incredibly clear, and I have many constituents who have post-traumatic stress disorder. I know them all well but I know one particularly well, and he is absolutely on edge with the talk of war and in regard to whether he would ever be called back into service. How many more are retraumatised with the scenes on our screens at present, reminding them of the last war on terror that we entered into and the dreadful price that they still pay for their service?
I do not know whether hon. Members had chance to see the programme on Channel 4 last night on the Falklands war. If they did, I gently remind them that even though the war began 40 years ago on 2 April, many, many of those who served in the Falklands war are traumatised and have PTSD. We saw examples on TV last night that brought it all back. That was 40 years ago, but people are still living all those experiences in a very difficult way.

Bob Stewart: I thank my good friend for giving way. Although he has not mentioned this, I remind the House that one heck of a lot of people were damaged in Northern Ireland. It was more than all the other wars put together, actually, and we must not forget the Northern Ireland veterans who are still suffering. They need to be looked after just as much as someone from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman reminds us all of the conflict and the 30-year war against the IRA in Northern Ireland, where he and others in this Chamber served gallantly and expertly for us. He is right that there are many in Northern Ireland who still live those battles every day and fight the demons that attack them. I served alongside many people on whom the trauma of what they saw, what they endured and the friends they lost left a lasting impression; unfortunately, some took their own lives. That is a salient reminder of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I know that from his own experiences he can confirm it better than most in this Chamber. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for all that he did for us in Northern Ireland.
One of my concerns is that when the scheme was envisaged, the number of beneficiaries was not accounted for in the mechanisms designed to deliver the scheme, which has resulted in unacceptable delays in sorting out payments. The additional pressure of trying to jump through the hoops is putting more strain on those who are already physically and mentally suffering. That needs to be addressed completely.
I thank charities such as SSAFA, the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and particularly Beyond the Battlefield, a charity in my constituency that will have the first centre in Northern Ireland dedicated especially for veterans to go and stay. I have invited the Minister to come along and open it, probably in May, and I very much look forward to that.
The scheme appears to focus on one-off payments, but the reality is that many who have suffered life-changing injuries have conditions that are evolving and deteriorating and that necessitate coming back to the scheme for additional payments. That has not been well handled; reassessments appear to be taking too long and are often hamstrung by an over-complex process in which veterans and their families have been placed at the periphery, not the heart. Instead of being about the outcome, it is all about the process, which is the wrong way round.
That leads me on to another concern, which is that the process is not independent enough. In effect, medical professionals funded by the MOD through Veterans UK are marking their own homework, with insufficient scrutiny applied to the process, the outcomes and the appeals. To be clear, my main concern is that Veterans UK is insufficiently resourced to manage the scheme effectively and that veterans and their families are suffering directly.
It is clear that Veterans UK is being asked to do too many things at once, with insufficient staffing, an outdated IT system and an over-reliance on paper-based records. It is not networked up with other agencies such as the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions or the judiciary overseeing appeals, so paperwork, medical reports, appeals and so on are all taking far too long. The much-heralded digitisation of Veterans UK is underfunded, unambitious and already running well behind. The likelihood is that by the time the process is complete, long backlogs will have built up with veterans waiting needlessly for outcomes: the technology will have moved on, but yet again veterans will be lagging behind.
I further point out to the Minister that Veterans UK is operating without defined priorities, so veterans awaiting the outcome of the armed forces compensation scheme are competing with veterans awaiting that of the war pensions scheme. Both groups are up against myriad veterans who are appealing previous outcomes or making complaints about poor processes or medical diagnoses from Veterans UK that are at odds with their own NHS consultants’ reports. They, in turn, are in the same queue as veterans waiting for the long-promised veterans’ ID card, which is being issued only to service leavers, not to veterans.
I am conscious that the three Front Benchers need to wind up, so I will conclude. The very existence of Veterans UK at its HQ at Norcross, where all these schemes and complaints are supposed to be managed, has been subject to a review. I support the scheme, as I think we all do, but we want to see it doing better. Like other hon. Members, I have only briefly been able to highlight the practical operational issues that show that change is needed, and needed soon.
It is time to get it right. Improvement is needed, and our veterans deserve better. These men and women have offered their all. There is no excuse for such treatment under a scheme that is designed only to help. I look forward to hearing how the Minister and his Department will address my and all our concerns and, more importantly, how they will provide the resources that are critical to doing better, enabling the scheme to work and operate well, as it is supposed to.

Carol Monaghan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this important debate. I think that most of us who have spoken this evening understand that the system needs some reformation.
It is of course at times like these, when we see the desperate scenes of the war in Ukraine, that we realise that conflict is never very far away. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of our armed forces, in the knowledge that military service does not come without cost. It can mean life-changing injuries, it can mean complex mental health issues, and it can, sadly, lead to death. It is for that very reason that the war pensions and armed forces compensation schemes exist. The state has an undeniable responsibility to care for those who have protected it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian made clear when he said that the burden of the harm should be carried by the state and not by the veteran. Providing compensation is the very least we can do for those who have given so much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) highlighted the issues experienced by her constituent, whose son sadly took his life. She also talked about the Scottish Veterans Fund, which the Scottish Government have set up. This is an important commitment to the health and wellbeing of our veteran community. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said that he found it extraordinary that charities were still filling in the gaps where the UK Government were missing. He never misses an opportunity to talk about the armed forces representative body. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described it as a union, but with the specific difference that members of this body would not have the ability to strike that we see in many other countries. In that respect, it would be much more like the Police Federation. It would, however, allow members of the serving and veteran communities to raise issues, although not through their superiors or those in their immediate line of duty.
The hon. Member for Strangford talked about his pride in the armed forces community, but he also talked about post-traumatic stress disorder and how it could be escalated by the scenes that we are seeing in Ukraine. We have to be aware of the fact that re-traumatisation can happen, and it can be caused by the processes of application for war pensions and subsequent appeals.
The UK Government continue to fall short, and stand guilty of putting cost cutting ahead of compensation. The stories that we have heard this evening are not isolated. Thousands of veterans have been affected by a protracted claims and appeals process. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about the time that these claims were taking, and said that we owed it to our veterans to speed the process up. Some veterans have sadly taken their own lives during the long wait for a decision from the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal.
It is concerning to hear reports that Veterans UK and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service have been prioritising reducing waiting times over the experience of those undergoing an appeal. Of course we agree that waiting times must be reduced, but that must be done in a considered manner that does not further disadvantage those who are going through the process. The Royal  British Legion, which is the default provider of representation for veterans at tribunal hearings, has said:
“early this year, in order for the Courts and Tribunals Service to meet their existing Key Performance Indicator of 75% of cases disposed of within 20 weeks, cases were being listed at an ever-increasing rate, outstripping the Royal British Legion’s capacity to provide representation and leaving us unable to represent vulnerable injured veterans and bereaved spouses requesting support.”
This is a pertinent issue, given that there is no legal requirement for an appellant to have representation. Questions must be answered with regard to the impartiality surrounding Veterans UK’s medical assessments.
I want to highlight three issues this evening. The first is the practice of the same medical assessor assessing a veteran’s claim at three separate stages of the process, instead of separate or different assessors being used to ensure the impartiality of opinions and a range of opinions. The second is the ability of medical assessors to overturn medical specialist diagnosis in order to deny claims. If an individual has medical specialist information and reports, they should take priority over the opinion of a medical assessor who does not have a knowledge of that individual. The third involves the concerning reports of medical evidence and paperwork being removed from veterans’ evidence bundles during the tribunal process.
Specific groups of veterans have been neglected, and I want to speak briefly about the British nuclear test veterans. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian spoke extensively about the trauma-informed approach. The nuclear test veterans, in their struggle for recognition and compensation, have experienced a system that is re- traumatising, rather than trauma informed. The ongoing issues that veterans have experienced on a broader scale are reflected in the Veterans UK customer satisfaction survey, with the majority saying that they could not rely on the Veterans Welfare Service or the Defence Transition Service to do what they said they would do. The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) talked about Veterans UK marking its own homework, and I think that is a phrase many of us would recognise.
What would we like to see? An independent inquiry is needed into the failings of the current system, which is pushing veterans into poverty and into mental health crisis. This must be a starting point towards implementing a trauma-informed approach to compensation. The review should include introducing a requirement that each veteran has access to a professional advocate to assist them through the application and the appeals process, and implementing a process of direct lodgement in England and Wales, as is already the case in Scotland.
Finally, there are other unresolved issues surrounding pensions and compensation that require urgent attention, from the LGBT veterans who were impacted by the historical ban on LGBT people in the armed forces to the veterans living abroad who are affected by the injustice of frozen pensions. I appeal to the Minister to make the necessary reforms to ensure that no veteran is disadvantaged as a result of their service and that all veterans have access to the financial support to which they are entitled.

Stephanie Peacock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on his campaigning on this issue and on securing this  important debate. As a country, we are all incredibly proud of our ex-servicemen and women. They have performed the ultimate public service, and if this has caused serious injury, illness or death, veterans and their families deserve to be fairly compensated. At the moment, however, far too many veterans are being denied the payments they are entitled to, leaving them at risk of poor mental health, poverty and the feeling of being let down by the country they have served with distinction.
At the heart of this issue is Veterans UK, which is in charge both of war pensions and of the armed forces compensation scheme. It is allowed to mark its own homework, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said, because it is responsible for both assessing claims and awarding any payments. Indeed, according to its own customer satisfaction survey, 80 % were not happy with the service, as was highlighted by the hon. Member for Midlothian. So building on the contributions of hon. Members today, I am going to address the delays in the process, the burden of proof that the system places on our veterans, and the reasons that current Government plans do not go far enough in solving these problems. Since 2009, successful applications to the armed forces compensation scheme have fallen from 62% to 46%, while rejections have risen from 30% to 40%. At the same time, average clearance times for claims have risen to more than 100 days for both the AFCS and war pensions, with war pension wait times missing the Government target since 2011. This means that, over the last decade, our veterans have been forced to wait longer by months, not weeks, only to be more likely to be rejected by their compensation schemes.
The first stage of the application is just the beginning, however. For veterans who feel they have been unfairly rejected, a lengthy and difficult appeal system awaits. Here, rather than Veterans UK having to prove an injury or illness is not related to service, veterans are tasked with the burden of proving it is. Too often, veterans have to rely on forces charities. As brilliant as they are, this should not be necessary, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said so passionately.
In a document that was also submitted to the Select Committee on Defence in 2021, the forces organisation Justice4Troops shared with us the following examples. Bruce Menzies was medically discharged in March 2020 with complex PTSD. He had a formal diagnosis, but his compensation claim was rejected, stating that his diagnosis was due to his “personality” and “genetics.” Bruce became homeless in May 2020 and faced a sharp deterioration in his health, becoming hospitalised.
Justine Montgomery joined the RAF with no pre-existing conditions. She sustained an injury to her right knee while in service. She was medically discharged, left unable to walk and in need of strong pain and nerve medications for the rest of her life. Her application for compensation was also rejected. She described the process as
“tedious, draining and near enough impossible to complete let alone progress with.”
Roy Shirlaw was an RAF engineer. He was injured on operations in 2011, resulting in surgery on his back. He was discouraged from making a claim, and when he did it was rejected as he was deemed to be “not on duty.”   This was later overturned at appeal, but his claim was still only partially accepted and the injuries were deemed to be not severe enough to qualify for compensation. Ten years after his initial injury, he is still stuck in the appeals process.
Each of these three people was medically discharged by the forces, but somehow they ended up unable to prove their worthiness for a scheme designed for injured and unwell ex-forces personnel. Veterans are not medical experts, yet they are forced, over and again, to try to prove the extent of their injuries, with many ending up stuck in the system for years and many forced to give up entirely, as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Msusb Qaisar) highlighted.
As has been mentioned, nuclear veterans have an even harder time than most in claiming compensation. The BNTVA and Labrats campaign groups and the Daily Mirror report that they are forced to prove that each and every medical condition is caused specifically by radiation, rather than being a result of service generally. Having flown through mushroom clouds, cleared up debris and crawled through the fallout of nuclear bombs as Britain tested our atomic weapons for the first time, the latest National Radiological Protection Board study on the health of these veterans found they are more likely to have and die from chronic myeloid leukaemia and several cancers, as well as being at a greater risk of self-harm. However, with limited medical records available from the time of the tests, proving their exposure to radiation and claiming compensation is a near-impossible task for these veterans, many of whom died before being able to claim a single penny. It is time the Government properly recognised our nuclear test veterans. We are the only country in the world not to do so. The Prime Minister should meet them, as he promised, and give them the recognition they deserve.
Money to address inefficiencies and digitalise Veterans UK is important but, for the veterans who have had their health, wellbeing and happiness taken from them, an online form rather than a paper one will be little consolation. In the last few days, Veterans UK has updated its site with flowcharts and the promise of bitesize videos to come. This is not a replacement for ensuring the compensation system is transparent, fair, impartial and consistent all the way through. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about how we need to make sure Veterans UK is properly resourced.
I conclude with these questions for the Minister. What is he doing to ensure that veterans who are already dealing with illnesses, disabilities and injuries do not have to fight for the compensation that is rightfully theirs? Does he support an independent review into how Veterans UK operates and what improvements can be made, and is he considering direct lodgement, as advocated by the Royal British Legion and outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)?
It is a question of ensuring that every veteran gets a fair and impartial chance to claim the compensation they are entitled to, having dedicated their lives to serving our country. The Government have a duty of  care to our ex-forces personnel. If Ministers continue to ignore those issues, they will be failing in that duty and failing our veterans.

Leo Docherty: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this important debate. I thank him for the words he spoke about his constituent, and we thank his constituent for his service; I look forward to continuing that correspondence, which I know to be of long standing.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that this is a relevant debate, given events in Ukraine, and pointed out that wars are fought not by armies, but by individuals. That is a very good point, and I agree that we must show compassion, recognition and respect. I must say that I do not concur with his overwhelmingly damning indictment of the system as it stands, but it is important that we are always seeking improvement. We are seeking improvement first in the speed of a claim, but also in customer service. However, I reiterate that this is not about saving money.

Liz Saville-Roberts: rose—

Leo Docherty: I will give way very briefly, but we are pushed for time.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The Minister is talking about constant improvements. I rise on behalf of my constituent, who in 2018 received a pension benefit forecast with an annual Army pension and a terminal benefit. In July last year he was told, in a letter from the Ministry of Defence, that he was no longer eligible for an Army pension. I wrote to the Minister in July last year on his behalf, but I have had neither acknowledgment nor reply. I have tried on many occasions to raise this matter, and I am now doing so in the Chamber. Will the Minister commit to meeting me to discuss my constituent’s case?

Leo Docherty: We will pursue that immediately. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the opportunity.
We will seek to improve speed and quality. We will not be just tinkering in the way we improve things; we are serious, because we know that we will be judged on our failures in this regard. I will briefly mention contributions by other hon. Members before I get on to putting some of the broader issues in context.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has a long-standing interest in this field. He talked about our moral responsibility to veterans—I agree with him—and his interesting ideas about the role of the VAPCs offer food for thought. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) raised the very concerning case of her constituent, and mentioned the good work of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner. I join her in commending that role.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) also raised a constituent’s case, and spoke about the convoluted nature of the process. I accept that that is the case, and that is exactly what we want to change by moving away from the paper process. The hon Member—my honourable friend—for West  Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) mentioned the important role of service charities, but I would argue that they augment the role of the state rather than replacing it, and we should be very proud of that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly highlighted his concerns about his constituents in Northern Ireland. I look forward to visiting him there soon. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) called for the reformation of the war pensions system, and that is exactly what we are getting after. I was grateful for the variety of comments made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who made a range of points, some of which I will address now.
First, I must set the context. We must bear it in mind that Veterans UK makes 106,000 monthly payments to recipients of the war pensions scheme and the armed forces compensation scheme. Those payments are tax free and linked to inflation through the consumer prices index. There are around 6,500 applications and 1,000 appeals and reconsiderations currently being processed. I am just trying to give a sense of the scale.
All that costs Her Majesty’s Government £736.3 million a year, £652 million under the war pensions scheme and £84.3 million under the armed forces compensation scheme. It is an operation of huge scale, and justifiably so, because it recognises the scale of the service of our magnificent veterans’ community, which comprises more than 2 million people, but in an organisation of that size there will of course be some cases that do not get the appropriate level of service.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister find time to update the House on the progress of a small-scale matter but an important one—the cohort of about 250 war widows who lost their pensions on co-habitation or remarriage and did not get them back when the law changed?

Leo Docherty: My right hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner on this. I hope we are making progress and I look forward to meeting him soon to update him.
Of the 106,000 awards, 154 complaints were received, so that is a 0.1% failure rate. Of course any failure is unsatisfactory and we want to reduce that number to absolutely zero, but I am just trying to give a sense of the scale of the system. The staff at Norcross are working their hardest in difficult conditions, and they do receive significant numbers of thank-yous, so I should put that on the record. It is a real problem that they are working with an antiquated system of paper records from many different sources of information that they have to bring together. The armed forces compensation scheme now has an average target time to resolve cases of 90 days, which is being met, and the war pensions scheme has an average target time of 127 days, which is falling short, but that is because they are trying to get rid of the backlog, which we all seek to clear, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked. We should do that with empathy and thoroughness. The future will be better. We recognise that we can do more. That is why we are injecting £40 million into digitising both schemes, which will result in a quicker process. The pilot that has just taken place resulted in something that previously took six weeks with the paper system  now taking six hours. We hope that the new digital system will launch at the end of 2023.
In tandem with those mechanical and procedural improvements, we are cognisant that we must inject more empathy into the process. Veterans UK is therefore conducting lived-experience roundtables bringing together veterans directly with its staff to hear about their service and adjusting their customer service style accordingly. On that note, I invite the hon. Member for Midlothian, on the back of this debate, if he would like to engage with the staff at Vets UK to try to be a part of the solution. We would be very grateful and I would look forward to affording that opportunity.
We are determined to improve the service to all those in receipt of payments from both schemes because they deserve nothing less than a first-rate service, as they deserve the gratitude and respect of the whole nation.

Owen Thompson: I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I think there is a very great degree of agreement. I do not think that anyone is necessarily saying anything vastly different from each other. We all want to see the best outcomes for the veterans who have given service to our nations, but sometimes the system is not working, and we need to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that it works right, whatever that takes. I am encouraged by what the Minister says. I will certainly be keeping a very close eye on what comes next, because we have to get this right. We cannot go on like this. There are veterans who have been put in these situations for decades in trying to get the compensation that they should be receiving, and we should all be endeavouring to ensure that they do. Again, I thank Members for their contributions, and I look forward to seeing what comes next.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the current process for claiming War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation payments is not fit for purpose and urges the Government to launch an independent inquiry into the system’s failings.

Business without Debate

Sittings in Westminster Hall (19 April)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 10(2)(b), the sitting in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 19 April shall begin at 11.30 am, shall be suspended from 1.30 pm to 4.30 pm, and may then continue for up to a further three hours.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Delegated Legislation (Social security)

Ordered,
That the Universal Credit and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work Search and Work Availability Requirements - limitations) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 108), laid before this House on 7 February 2022 be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Petition - Abuse of short-term letting

Nickie Aiken: The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Cities of London and Westminster,
Declares that local authorities should be granted stronger powers to deal with rogue landlords who abuse the short-term lets 90 Day Rule in London.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce an amendment to the 2015 Deregulation Act to allow for a licensing regime in order to practically enforce the 90 Day Rule.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002725]

Lateral Flow Tests in Healthcare Settings

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Virendra Sharma: I am delighted to have secured tonight’s Adjournment debate on an important topic for my constituents and people across the country. I feel driven to raise this point again because I do not believe that the Government are adequately considering the most vulnerable. Two weeks ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of more than 50 hon. Members of this place and others. We were of all parties—this is not a party political issue but one of fairness and justice—and we were of one mind: that the charge for lateral flow tests would exclude many from a proper part of life in this country.
It is clear to everyone that the fight against covid-19 is not over. The rise of new variants and strains will continue. Researchers and healthcare professionals will develop and deploy new and more effective vaccinations and therapies. I think the Minister will agree that we have to learn to live with covid and that we will not eliminate it tomorrow, but living with it is a death sentence for many. Millions across the UK are clinically extremely vulnerable or have CEV relatives and friends in care homes and medical settings.
Protecting the most vulnerable has been a key aim of public health policy for two years, and that is right.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. I agree with him entirely. Does he agree that it is essential for testing to remain widely accessible for those who are face to face with the most vulnerable in society: the carers, who have been at the forefront of protecting all of us across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the last two years? Lateral flow tests are still worth the cost, and they must continue to be available free for all vulnerable people and their carers.

Virendra Sharma: I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention. I am sure that the Minister took note of his concerns.
We all know that we are experiencing and facing an increasing cost of living crisis, and earlier this month the Foreign Secretary agreed that the escalating crisis in Ukraine will only drive inflation higher, so in the midst of the most serious cost of living crisis for a generation, with a national insurance tax rise and with covid remaining a global threat, it would be wrong to add a further burden on to families wanting to stay safe from covid and visit friends and families in care settings. The introduction of charges for lateral flow tests risks introducing a serious cost on many for visiting their closest family when those visits mean so much to visitor and host.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward the debate. In York, the case rate is now 977.7 per 100,000, 261 patients are in hospital poorly, five more deaths have just been announced and four people are in intensive care, so the virus is far from leaving us. In Labour-run  Wales, an extension to the lateral flow test programme has been announced so that we can know where the virus is, manage it and protect our NHS. Should we not be doing that in England?

Virendra Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Again, the Minister has taken note. I am certain she will make that comparison and try to assist and to follow the best practices in other parts of the country.
Low-income and frontline workers will be hit the hardest by the introduction of charges, but regular testing is vital to minimise the spread of covid-19. The money saving expert Martin Lewis said last week that he was out of ideas. There is nothing left for families to do. Inflation is just too high. In my constituency, I have spoken to staff and volunteers at Ealing food bank who do amazing work to help those most in need. They are deeply concerned about the move to charge for lateral flow tests. Their service users will have to make the choice between paying to test and heating and eating.
In January, I raised this issue with the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who agreed that testing
“has played a key role in our response”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 629.]
But now we are cutting off that limb of the response. The Government are choosing to weaken their arsenal in the fight and to lessen the effect of two years of hard work and sacrifice.
Even before the newest wave of inflation struck, families in my constituency were struggling to feed themselves. Now it will get only worse, with a cost of £12 for just one pack of tests. At the end of February I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care how much the packs cost his Department, but he could not give me the figures for commercial reasons.
But please, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not think it is just the cost that is the problem: no, it is the fairness too. Throughout the country, nearly 1.5 million people are eligible for treatments such as antivirals if they get covid-19, because the UK Government have identified them as being at the highest risk of severe illness. We know that those people are more at risk, less safe, and less protected by natural or acquired immunity. Around 500,000 of these people are immunocompromised, meaning it is less likely that they receive the same level of protection from covid-19 vaccines. The vaccines have been incredible and have reopened the world for many, but not for everyone. Infection is still a terrifying and uncertain prospect for many of the 500,000 immunocompromised.
There is more. The national health service has worked tirelessly to keep us safe and to save lives. I again pay tribute to the incredible staff of Hillingdon Hospital who did so much for me when I had my own covid infection. They saved my life, and I am eternally grateful to them. What payment to them for two years of danger and worry is it that they will have no certainty that their patients are covid free?
I recall the fuss from Members on the Government Benches when they were asked to wear masks to help to prevent the spread of covid-19. There were ludicrous comments from some. One compared wearing a mask to abuse, agreeing with the statement that masks were
“germ or bacteria ridden cloths”.
Well, those in the NHS still have to wear masks for their own safety. Perhaps more testing, and allowing people to take responsibility without having to pay for tests, would allow a few more people in hospitals and GP surgeries to take their masks off.

Rachael Maskell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, I must say, but could I mention care homes as well? People have made huge sacrifices over the last two years in not seeing their loved ones in care homes, and not being able to afford a test will put another barrier in their way. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the care home setting it is vital that relatives have access to tests?

Virendra Sharma: I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I was going to talk next about care homes, but her intervention has certainly confirmed my argument and point of view that this is the most important area the Government need to look at very seriously if we want to control the effects of covid-19 on our society.
We could also speak about dentists, whose industry is struggling with the pandemic, while they are driven by targets in NHS contracts that they cannot meet. There is no help from the Government to meet the massive costs of making their practices safer, but now patients are being robbed of the opportunity to test before going to the dentist’s. We cannot erase risk, but we can try to minimise it for everyone working in healthcare and in healthcare settings.
We have all gone through so much to combat covid-19, suffered so much and sacrificed so much. I do not argue for lockdowns and closing the economy or closing the country off from the world, but now is the wrong time to cut this specific key lifeline for millions. It is the wrong time to take away peace of mind, and the ability to do the right thing in checking whether we have covid-19 and acting responsibly. I urge the Minister to work with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find a way to pay for lateral flow tests, and to protect this tool in the fight to ensure that the worst-off in society are not cut off from their loved ones and that the most vulnerable feel more secure leaving their homes.

Maggie Throup: First, I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for bringing forward this debate about lateral flow tests in healthcare settings. He speaks so passionately about health issues more broadly, and I am grateful for his speech on this important topic today. He has spoken previously about access to covid-19 testing, particularly in specific settings, and I want to put on record my thanks for his contributions on these matters.
As the hon. Member highlighted, the pandemic has provided this country with a monumental challenge. When coronavirus first emerged, we knew very little about it, other than reports that people were becoming seriously ill and, very sadly, passing away. The Government moved quickly with unprecedented measures that affected every single person on these isles, building and scaling up our testing capability to levels not seen before, sponsoring the development of groundbreaking vaccine technology and being the first country in the world to approve a vaccine.
Our huge thanks go to all those who supported the vaccine roll-out and mass testing. From our NHS staff on the frontline, primary care workers and individuals in the community to the military providing expertise in logistics and planning, colleagues from the private sector and civil servants deployed from their normal roles, we recognise the immense effort and long, exhausting hours they have put in working to keep the nation safe.
I am proud of how the Government responded at pace to the challenges that health and social care staff faced. Since April 2021, we have dispatched over 5.8 million rapid lateral flow tests to NHS workers in England—directly to NHS trusts, care settings and the homes of individual staff members—with over 60,000 of those going directly to the hon. Member’s local NHS trust in Ealing.
Testing has been a crucial countermeasure throughout the pandemic. The world-beating scaling up of our PCR testing capability proved invaluable, enabling us to diagnose symptomatic individuals when facing a growing but relatively unknown threat from a new virus.
We introduced lateral flow devices in November 2020 as a tool in addition to the highly sensitive PCR tests. LFTs were a significant step change in our battle  against covid-19, enabling us to open up greater levels of asymptomatic testing and tackling asymptomatic transmission when the vaccine roll-out was in its infancy yet still ahead of the rest of the world.
Since April 2021, 13,500 positive but asymptomatic NHS-linked individuals have been identified by LFTs. Through their tireless dedication to regular testing, staff in the NHS and in care drove that most pressing fight to protect those most at risk—their colleagues at work, their friends, their families and, most importantly, their patients. All were protected because we were able to break the chains of infection using LFTs. I want to put on the record my immense thanks to each and every NHS and care worker for their valiant and unwavering efforts.
Since the early months, we have learned a lot more about covid-19, including what makes someone more at risk of contracting the virus and how best to mitigate the risk of transmission. That applies in all settings, although especially in healthcare and social care ones, where the close nature of the care provided creates greater opportunity for transmission. In these places, LFT testing has helped to ensure that staff can continue to safely carry out essential care for those most at risk.
By relying on the expert advice of our medical and scientific advisers, many of whom have become household names because of their immense contributions, we have been able to take steps to mitigate the rate of transmission of covid-19. We are now in a much better position, where the link between infection and severity of disease is substantially weaker than in earlier phases of the pandemic. We have severely weakened the link between infection and severe disease. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, cases are rising again. However, we are on the front foot thanks to vaccines and community covid-19 treatments.
The UK’s investment in groundbreaking vaccine technology and our world-beating vaccination programme has put us one step ahead of the virus. Vaccination is now the UK’s first line of defence. Thanks to the  actions taken by the people of the United Kingdom, as of 24 March 2022 more than 85% of those over 12 have had two doses. Now we are also inviting those aged 75 and over, residents in care homes for older adults,  and individuals of 12 years and over who have a weakened immune system to take up the offer of a spring booster jab.
Importantly, we now have widespread availability of targeted community covid-19 treatments. For people who are eligible, those can significantly minimise the chance of developing severe disease. I hope that the spring booster and the community covid-19 treatment programme reassure the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall that we take very seriously the situation of the immuno-suppressed.

Rachael Maskell: My concern is that in York, where about 90% of people are vaccinated, the rate of people getting very poorly with covid is going up. The antiviral treatments are not effective, because there is an increase in mortality as well. Putting the additional line of defence—testing to prevent transmission—in the system is one way to save lives. I cannot understand why the Government will not move the issue on for three months; we could then review the situation again.

Maggie Throup: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I know she is passionate about this issue, which she has spoken about many times. It is important that we should recognise that we have moved on. We have broken the chain of transmission with the vaccination programme, which is our first line of defence along with antivirals and therapeutics within NHS settings.
Core to continuing to stay ahead of the virus and learning to live with covid is a move to everyone embodying safer behaviours in their day-to-day lives. The Government recommend continued vaccination, which ensures that everyone is as protected as possible and reduces the chance of their becoming infected and transmitting it to others and of developing severe disease. We have the spring booster programme, and there is an evergreen offer to those who have not yet come forward for their first dose—there are a few of them every day—or who have delayed their second dose or booster. They are welcome to book their vaccines at any time.
We recommend ventilation to ensure that harmful particles are blown away, and the wearing of face coverings in crowded and enclosed spaces to minimise transmission, particularly where prevalence is higher. People should stay at home if they are unwell, to ensure that they do not spread the virus to their friends and family, as well as washing hands regularly and following NHS advice to “catch it, bin it, kill it.” In addition to that advice, NHS England for NHS staff, and the Department of Health and Social Care and the UK Health Security Agency for social care staff, provide expert infection prevention and control guidelines to ensure that healthcare staff, their families and their patients are kept as safe as possible.
Over the past two years we have worked relentlessly to ensure that the people of the United Kingdom have been protected from the virus, reacting to learnings and putting them into practice, as well as using them to implement pragmatic long-term plans. The approach to managing covid-19 in NHS and social care services has evolved over time, giving us the opportunity to learn  what works best to keep people safe. We have the opportunity to put that learning into practice, while continuing to focus on providing care for those who need it and supporting those at risk from covid-19.
As we know, the pandemic is by no means over. The UK Health Security Agency continues to monitor the virus and has recommended a package of contingency capabilities that form a reasonable insurance scenario to enable us to respond to resurgences or new variants of concern. I reassure the House that in line with recommendations, the Government have secured a supply  of lateral flow devices to use if necessary. Limited ongoing free testing will be available for a small number of high-risk groups within the settings we have discussed, plans of which will soon be set out in further detail by the Government. Once again I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall for securing this debate on such an important issue and expressing his remarks so well.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.